20170920 Ver 1 _Final Mitigation Plan _20180823

Action History (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Submit by Anonymous User 8/23/2018 11:36:49 AM (Message Start Event)
Approve by Montalvo, Sheri A 8/23/2018 11:43:46 AM (Initial Review- Sheri Montalvo)
• The task was assigned to Montalvo, Sheri A 8/23/2018 11:36 AM

D# * 20170920
Version* 1
Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt
Mitigation Project Submittal - 8/23/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
fJ Stream fJ Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a f Yes r No
New Site? *
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Lin Xu
Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing (DWR) ID#:* 20170920
(nun-bers only... no dash)
Existing Version:* 1
(nurrbers only)
Project Name:* Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
County:* Alamance
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plan
File Upload: Heron_100014_MP_2018.pdf
33.56MB
401 PermitFee-Heron.pdf
39.23KB
Heron401 COffice.pdf
39.26KB
Heron401 WinstonSalem.pdf
34.7KB
HeronPCN.pdf
2.21 MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lin Xu

Signature:*

Environmental
Quality
August 22, 2018
Karen Higgins, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
ROY COOPER
Governor
Re: Permit Application- Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Alamance County (DMS
Full Delivery Project)
Dear Ms. Higgins:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Another
copy has been sent to the Winston-Salem Regional Office for review. A memo for the permit
application fee is also included in the package. All electronic files have been uploaded to NC
DWR's file system. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919-
707-8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Permit Application Fee Memo
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 11601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

Environmental
Quality
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Summer Lowe
Lin Xu L_X
Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
August 22, 2018
ROY COOPER
Governor
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is implementing a mitigation project for
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site in Alamance County (DMS IMS # 100014).
The activities associated with this restoration project involve stream and wetland
restoration related temporary stream and wetland impact. To conduct these activities,
the DMS must submit a Pre -construction Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of
Water Resources (DWR) for review and approval. The DWR assesses a fee of $570.00
for this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from DMS Fund # 2981, Account # 535120 to DWR as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919-707-8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Karen Higgins, DWR
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
217 West Janes Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 276991601
919 707 8600

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina

DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
RFP No. 16-006990

Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002

Prepared for:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

July 2018

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina

DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
RFP No. 16-006990

Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002

Prepared for:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

Prepared by:

And

Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Worth Creech Contact: Grant Lewis
919-755-9490 (phone) 919-215-1693 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)

July 2018

“This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010

These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.”

This document was assembled using the June 2017 DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance
and the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site IRT Comment Responses 7/10/2018

Mac Haupt, NCDWR, May 18, 2018:

1. Please note that in the future, the soils series mapped as Local Alluvial Land
will be treated as a Fluvaquent and therefore will require a minimum hydro
period saturation of 12% in the approved growing season.
• All wetlands identified in the restoration plan are mapped as Worsham
Sandy Loam, or inclusions of hydric soils in series mapped other than Local
Alluvial Land. At this time, no wetlands are proposed in the Local Alluvial
Land Soil Series.
2. DWR notes that the wetland growing season proposed is March 1st-October
22nd. This is acceptable, however, DWR would like to know the frequency
of soil temperature measurement that will occur from February through
April. Since an extend growing season is proposed, DWR requests that the
soil temperature measurements are taken from February two weeks prior to
the growing season start date and maintained until the end of April.
• Soil temperature is proposed to be taken on daily intervals, using a
continuous monitoring soil probe. The probe will be installed in mid-
February and will record through April. Text in Table 16 has been added
stating the following: “Note: Soil temperature for growing season
establishment will be measured daily utilizing a continuous monitoring soil
probe. Soil temperature will be measured from mid-February through the
end of April (at a minimum)”.
3. DWR accepts the 10% wetland saturation performance criteria. Please note
that if any of the wetland restoration areas contained the Local Alluvial Land
series the performance criteria would be as stated in #1.
• All wetlands identified in the restoration plan are mapped as Worsham
Sandy Loam, or inclusions of hydric soils in series mapped other than Local
Alluvial Land. At this time, no wetlands are proposed in the Local Alluvial
Land Soil Series.
4. DWR requests that a stream gauge be placed at sta 2+75 on UT6. • A stream gauge will be placed accordingly and depicted on Figure 10C (Monitoring Plan).
5. DWR requests that a stream gauge be placed at sta 2+50 on UT2.
• UT 2 is an Enhancement Level II reach, which doesn’t typically require
stream flow gauges; however, a gauge will be placed accordingly and
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
depicted on Figure 10A (Monitoring Plan).
6. DWR requires that a vegetation plot be placed at the top of UT7 (in the relic
pond area), the current proposed plot at the beginning of the Enhancement
1 reach can be moved to the pond area.
• An additional vegetation plot will be located in the relic pond bed and
depicted on Figure 10C (Monitoring Plan).
7. The same requirement goes for the vegetation plot near the top of UT5,
please locate the vegetation plot in the relic pond bed.
• The vegetation plot depicted on Figure 10B will be moved to the relic pond
bed.
8. DWR has an issue with the current design sheet plans. The proposed thalweg
shows no bedform changes, especially when numerous grade control
structures are proposed, for example plan sheets 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12.
Please redo the design sheets to graphically show the proposed bedform
changes per structure and in the reach.
• Design sheets have been updated to show riffles and pools.
9. The designer is well aware what DWR thinks of the Terracell drop
structures. While currently, DWR is letting these structures be utilized, there
are two locations in the proposed 4 applications where DWR questions their
need. As per the design sheet 13, it appears that the end of UT6 is being
raised, and therefore removes the need for a drop structure. Also, at the
confluence of UT4 and UT5, the slope is the same that is being utilized
upstream to manage grade with cross vanes.
• Profiles have been updated to depict tie-in elevations at the Site outfalls. The
designer believes the slopes warrant suitable protection. DWR concerns for
the use of Terracell is understood.
10. DWR would like to emphasize that in the future, highly fragmented and
disconnected sites may receive a credit reduction. On the other hand, larger
contiguous sites may garner more credit. Of course, the prior statement is
pending IRT review and approval, nevertheless, DWR will continue to
emphasize these points.
• The comment is duly noted. Andrea Hughes, USACE, June 14, 2018:
1. The plan provides extensive discussion of the reference areas, and functional
uplift and project goals/objectives. However, the mitigation plan does not
provide adequate description of the existing resources and the proposed
treatments. The plan should include a brief paragraph for each resource
describing the existing conditions (including a description of the existing
buffer) and impairments. The mitigation plan should also include a
paragraph for each resource describing the proposed treatments that will be
implemented to address the impairments. The plan indicates that the site
includes stream restoration, enhancement I and enhancement II and wetland
restoration and enhancement. The general descriptions provided are
adequate for a prospectus document but lack sufficient detail for a draft
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
mitigation plan.
• Please see Section 7.2 (Individual Reach Descriptions) for requested
information concerning existing resources and proposed treatments.

2. Tables should include a column for each tributary proposed for restoration.
Table 8 combines UT3, UT4, UT5, and UT6, Table B1 combines UT 4 and
UT 5. Neither table includes information on UT 2.
• Tables 8 and B1 have been updated in the document to include all
tributaries.
3. Table 15 indicates that gauges or trail camera will be utilized to document
bankfull on UT3, UT5, and UT 7. Bankfull must be documented for all
stream restoration reaches.
• Flow gauges will be added to each reach to with an intermittent flow
designation, reaches requested by the IRT, and reaches greater than 1000
linear feet (as per 2016 IRT guidance). Gauge locations will be updated in
Table 15 and Figures 10A to 10D.
4. Stream gauges to document minimum flow should be placed in the upper
third of all intermittent reaches proposed for restoration.
• All intermittent streams will be monitored for minimum flow standards.
Monitoring figures (Figures 10A to 10D), Table 15, and Table 16 will be
updated accordingly. Text has been added to Table 16 as follows.
“Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30
consecutive days. Surface water monitoring gauges will be installed in the
upper third of all intermittent channels, unless otherwise requested by the
IRT.”
• Please note: for UT 2 (Enhancement Level II) and UT 6 NCDWR has
requested specific locations for flow gauge installation that may differ from
USACE standards. We have located flow gauges as requested by NCDWR
in these tributaries.
5. Under performance standards, ET for C/E channels should be > 2.2.
• Text will be changed to the following throughout the document.
“Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 2.2 for E- and C-type
channels at any measured riffle cross-section. Note: B-type channels may
have an ER less than 1.4.”
6. Under vegetation success, a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at Year 5.
• Vegetation success has been changed to 260 stems per acre in year 5.
7. Section 8.2.2 provides a contingency for wetland enhancement areas but
does not provide discussion for wetland re-establishment areas.
• Text will be changed to hydrology enhancement, re-establishment, and
rehabilitation.
8. The plan indicates six shallow wetland marsh treatment areas will be
excavated in the floodplain but will not receive mitigation credits. If these
areas are not proposed to generate credits, then please remove the credit
release schedule for Coastal Marsh Wetlands (page 30). However, since the
marsh treatment areas are located within the stream buffers, the mitigation
plan should include a performance standard for the marsh wetlands tied to
vegetation success.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
• The marsh treatment areas are approximately 1/100th acre in size and are
intended to naturalize into the floodplain. The areas are slight depressions
(0.5 to 1.5 feet in depth) that are intended to catch the first pulse of storm
drainage prior to vegetation establishment. They are intended to fill over
time and naturalize into the adjacent landscape. These are not stormwater
BMPs which require maintenance to continue functioning. At this time, due
to the small size and expectation of naturalization, we do not propose
extensive monitoring beyond standard vegetative monitoring protocols
outlined in IRT guidance.
9. According to field notes, a utility line on UT6 was proposed for relocation.
The plan does not provide information regarding relocation.
• A brief paragraph will be included in Section 7.0 (Design Approach and
Mitigation Work Plan). Currently, moving the powerline is depicted on
Figure 6C; therefore, figure updates should not be required.

• Text has been added to the document including the following: “An existing
powerline services an agriculture complex including a livestock barn. The
powerline parallels the UT 7 stream bank and crosses both UT 7 and UT 6
in its current location. Coordination with Randolph Electric Membership
Corporation has been initiated to move the powerline upstream, and outside
of the UT 6 and UT 7 easement. A copy of the Utility Work Agreement with
the Randolph Electric Membership Corporation is included in Appendix J.
Work to be conducted under the Utility Work Agreement will be initiated
upon approval of this Detailed Restoration Plan.”

• In addition, the Utility Work Agreement between Mr. Russell B Hadley and
the Randolph Electric Membership Corporation will be included as an
appendix item.
10. According to field notes, some EII areas along UT 8 should be 5:1 ratio.
• The approved Post-IRT Site Visit Notes (dated July 28, 2017) indicate that
EII reaches of UT 8 may be credited at a 2.5:1 ratio as presented in the field.
A subsequent email from Mr. Haupt states the reach was “not a lock” for
2.5:1; however, no guidance was provided for how to proceed with the reach.
Given the benefit for the project we believe a 2.5:1 ratio for the EII reach of
UT 8 is justified.
11. According to field notes, the provider indicated they would provide
additional information regarding whether the spray field is included in the
easement areas. The mitigation plan does not provide information. • Text has been added to Section 7.1 (Stream Design) to include the following: “Agriculture fields adjacent to, and west of, UT 8 have been utilized by the City of Burlington for the application of municipal waste. Communication with the City of Burlington Residuals Management Coordinator has been ongoing throughout the design process to update maps (map NC-AM – 16 [Michael Hadley]) such that land application of municipal waste will cease within, and immediately adjacent to, UT 8. Communications of the successful modification to City of Burlington maps are included in appendix K.
12. According to field notes, UT 2 was approved as EII. The plan indicates restoration for UT 2B.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
• The reach of UT 2 proposed as restoration (UT 2B) extends from the terminus of the existing channel to the proposed channel tie-in with UT 1. This reach of channel will require the excavation of channel on new location. The reach proposed as restoration extends slightly upstream within the UT 2 channel, which is necessary to maintain proper slope of the channel (the bed of UT 2 at the extreme lower reach is below the design channel bed of UT 1 at its confluence).

Thank you,

Worth Creech

August 13, 2018

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Heron Site Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW-2017-
01471; DMS Project #100014

Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Dear Mr. Baumgartner:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT)
during the 30-day review for the Heron Site Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on June 1, 2018,
2018. Please note the comment period was extended to allow the provider to respond to project
concerns. These comments are attached for your review.

Based on our review of these comments and the provider’s response to comments, we have
determined that no major concerns have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is
considered approved with this correspondence. However, the provider’s proposed changes to the
draft mitigation plan in response to issues identified in the memo must be addressed in the Final
Mitigation Plan.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. All
changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the
beginning of the document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of
the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of
this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning
construction of the project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit
conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues referenced above are
not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation
Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation
credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding
this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please
contact Andrea Hughes at [phone].

Sincerely,

for Henry M. Wicker
Deputy Chief, Wilmington District

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jeff Schaffer, NCDMS

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Table of Contents page i
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 DIRECTIONS TO SITE .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWR RIVER BASIN DESIGNATION ....................... 1
1.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND LAND USE ............................................................................................ 1
1.4 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE .............................................................................. 2
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION .................................................... 7
3.0 REFERENCE STREAMS..................................................................................................... 9
3.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................... 9
3.2 DISCHARGE ......................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY .................................................................................................... 10
4.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................. 10
4.1 SOILS AND LAND FORM ....................................................................................................... 10
4.2 SEDIMENT MODEL ............................................................................................................... 12
4.3 NUTRIENT MODEL ............................................................................................................... 12
4.4 PROJECT SITE STREAMS ...................................................................................................... 13
4.4.1 Existing Conditions Survey...................................................................................... 13
4.4.2 Channel Classification and Morphology .................................................................. 16
4.4.3 Channel Evolution .................................................................................................... 16
4.4.4 Valley Classification ................................................................................................ 16
4.4.5 Discharge.................................................................................................................. 16
4.5 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 16
4.6 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ................................................................................................... 18
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ......................................... 19
5.1 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ............................................................................... 19
5.2 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................. 19
5.3 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................... 19
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification......................................................................................... 19
5.3.2 Profile Description ................................................................................................... 20
5.4 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................................... 20
5.5 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM ........................................................................................ 20
6.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT AND PROJECT GOALS/OBJECTIVES .............................. 21
7.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN .......................................... 26
7.1 STREAM DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 26
7.1.1 Stream Restoration ................................................................................................... 26
7.1.2 Stream Enhancement (Level I)................................................................................. 27
7.1.3 Stream Enhancement (Level II) ............................................................................... 27
7.2 INDIVIDUAL REACH DESCRIPTIONS ..................................................................................... 28
7.2.1 UT 1 ......................................................................................................................... 28
7.2.2 UT 2 ......................................................................................................................... 28

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Table of Contents page ii
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
7.2.3 UT 3 ......................................................................................................................... 29
7.2.4 UT 4 ......................................................................................................................... 29
7.2.5 UT 5 ......................................................................................................................... 30
7.2.6 UT 6 ......................................................................................................................... 31
7.2.7 UT 7 ......................................................................................................................... 31
7.2.8 UT 8 ......................................................................................................................... 32
7.3 HYDROLOGICAL MODIFICATIONS (WETLAND RESTORATION) ............................................ 33
7.4 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT .................................................................................................. 33
7.5 SOIL RESTORATION ............................................................................................................. 33
7.6 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION .................................................................... 34
7.6.1 Planting Plan ............................................................................................................ 34
7.6.2 Nuisance Species Management ................................................................................ 36
8.0 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA .................................................................. 36
8.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA .............................................................................................................. 38
8.2 CONTINGENCY..................................................................................................................... 38
8.2.1 Stream Contingency ................................................................................................. 38
8.2.2 Wetland Contingency ............................................................................................... 39
8.2.3 Vegetation Contingency ........................................................................................... 39
8.3 COMPATIBILITY WITH PROJECT GOALS ............................................................................... 39
9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN................................................................................ 41
10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................... 41
11.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 42

TABLES
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits .................................................................... 3
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ........................................................................... 4
Table 3. Project Contacts Table ..................................................................................................... 5
Table 4. Project Attribute Table..................................................................................................... 5
Table 5. Watershed Stressors and Usage Ratings .......................................................................... 9
Table 6. Web Soil Survey Soils Mapped within the Site ............................................................. 11
Table 7. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary ............................................................................. 12
Table 8. Essential Morphology Parameters ................................................................................. 14
Table 9. Stream Power (Ω) and Shear Stress (τ) Values ............................................................. 17
Table 10. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis ........................................................... 19
Table 11. Reference Forest Ecosystem ........................................................................................ 20
Table 12A. Heron Site NC SAM Summary................................................................................. 22
Table 12B. Heron Site NC WAM Summary ............................................................................... 24
Table 12C. Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives .................................... 25
Table 13. Planting Plan ................................................................................................................ 35
Table 14. Monitoring Schedule.................................................................................................... 36
Table 15. Monitoring Summary ................................................................................................... 37
Table 16. Success Criteria............................................................................................................ 38
Table 17. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives ..................... 40

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Table of Contents page iii
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
APPENDICES

Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5A. Cedarock Reference Drainage Area
Figure 5B. Cedarock Reference Existing Conditions
Figure 5C. Cedarock Reference Reach Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures 6 & 6A-D. Restoration Plan
Figure 7. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures 8A-B. Typical Structure Details
Figure 9A–9C. Planting Plan
Figure 10A–10D. Monitoring Plan
Appendix B. Existing Stream Data
Table B1. Heron Morphological Stream Characteristics
Figure B1. Cross-section Locations
Existing Stream Cross-section Data
Sediment Data
NC SAM Forms
NC WAM Forms
NCDWQ Stream Forms
Appendix C. Flood Frequency Analysis Data
Appendix D. Jurisdictional Determination Information
Appendix E. Categorical Exclusion Document
Appendix F. Financial Assurance
Appendix G. Site Protection Instrument
Appendix H. Credit Release Schedule
Appendix I. Maintenance Plan
Appendix J. Randolph Electric Membership Corporation, Utility Work Agreement
Appendix K. City of Burlington, Map Modification for Land Application

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 1
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) encompasses
17.5 acres of agricultural land along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch and
unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek. The Site is located approximately 4 miles
southeast of Snow Camp and 4.5 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A).
1.1 Directions to Site
Directions to the Site from Raleigh, North Carolina.
 Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,
 Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,
 After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,
 After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road,
 After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,
 After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethel South Fork Road,
 Site can be accessed from Bethel South Fork Road.
o Site Latitude, Longitude
35.853955ºN, -79.363458ºW (WGS84)
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWR River Basin Designation
The Site is located within the Cape Fear River Basin in 14-digit United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002050050 of the South
Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division of Water Resources [NCDWR], formerly the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, subbasin number 03-06-04) [Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A]).
Topographic features of the Site drain to Pine Hill Branch and the South Fork Cane Creek which
has been assigned Stream Index Numbers 16-28-5-1 and 16-28-5, respectively, and a Best Usage
Classification of WS-V, NSW (NCDWR 2016a). Site tributaries and their immediate receiving
waters are not listed on the draft 2016 or final 2014 NC 303(d) lists (NCDWR 2014, NCDWR
2016b).
1.3 Physiography and Land Use
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt Ecoregion of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
within Alamance County, North Carolina. Regional physiography is characterized by dissected
irregular plains, some hills, linear ridges, isolated monadnocks, and low to moderate gradient
streams with mostly boulder and cobble substrates (Griffith et al. 2002). Onsite elevations range
from a high of 550 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to a low of approximately 490
feet NGVD (USGS Silk Hope, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle) (Figures 1 and
3, Appendix A).

The primary hydrologic features of the Site consist of unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Pine Hill
Branch and UTs to South Fork Cane Creek. Site UT drainage areas range in size from 14.1-96.4
acres (0.02-0.15 square mile) (Figure 3, Appendix A). The Site drainage area is primarily

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 2
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
composed of pasture, forest, agriculture land, and sparse residential property. Impervious surfaces
account for less than two-percent of the upstream land surface.

Site land use consists of disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock grazing and hay
production. Livestock have unrestricted access to Site streams and stream banks are eroded
vertically and laterally, and receive extensive sediment and nutrient inputs. Riparian zones are
primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing,
bush hogging, and regular land-management activities.

A query of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database indicates there are no records
for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas
within the proposed project boundary, or within a one-mile radius of the project boundary.
However, a North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) conservation easement
boundary occurs approximately 0.6 mile east of the Site boundaries.
1.4 Project Components and Structure
The Site encompasses17.5 acres of agricultural land along warm water, UTs to Pine Hill Branch
and South Fork Cane Creek. In its current state, the Site includes 5285 linear feet of degraded
stream channel (based on the approved PJD), 0.61 acre of degraded wetland, and 0.35 acre of
drained hydric soil (Figure 4, Appendix A).

Proposed Site restoration activities include the construction of meandering, E/C-type stream
channel resulting in 4183 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration, 1234 linear feet of stream
enhancement (Level I), 1131 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level II), 0.35 acre of riparian
wetland restoration, and 0.61 acre of riparian wetland enhancement (Table 1) (Figures 6A-6D,
Appendix A).

Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background
information are summarized in Tables 1-4.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 3
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Heron Restoration Site
Reach ID
Stream
Stationing/
Wetland Type
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration Level
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits Comment
UT 1A 00+00 to 04+70 470 470 Enhancement (Level I) 470 1.5:1 313
UT 1B 04+70 to 13+06 753 836 Restoration 836-64=
772 1:1 772
64 lf of UT1 is located outside
of the conservation easement
and therefore is not generating
credit
UT 2A 00+00 to 03+43 343 343 Enhancement (Level II) 343 2.5:1 137
UT 2B 03+43 to 03+89 19 46 Restoration 46 1:1 46
UT 3 00+00 to 02+79 269 279 Restoration 279 1:1 279
UT 4 00+00 to 04+50 485 450 Restoration 450 1:1 450
UT 5A 00+00 to 09+52 422 952 Restoration 952-53=
899 1:1 899
53 lf of UT5 is located outside
of the conservation easement
and therefore is not generating
credit
UT 5B 09+52 to 14+90 538 538 Enhancement (Level II) 538 2.5:1 215
UT 6 00+00 to 07+81 683 781 Restoration 781 1:1 781
UT 7A 00+00 to 02+32 0 232 Restoration 232-42=
190 1:1 190
42 lf of the UT7 restoration
reach is located outside of the
conservation easement and
therefore is not generating
credit
UT 7B 02+32 to 09+96 764 764 Enhancement (Level I) 764-52=
712 1.5:1 475
52 lf of the UT7 enhancement
reach is located outside of the
conservation easement and
therefore is not generating
credit
UT8A 00+00 to 06+07 549 607 Restoration 607 1:1 607
UT 8B 06+07 to 08+57 250 250 Enhancement (Level II) 250 2.5:1 100
Wetland R Riparian
Riverine -- 0.35 Restoration 0.35 1:1 0.35 Wetland Restoration
Wetlands E Riparian
Riverine 0.61 0.61 Enhancement 0.61 2:1 0.31 Wetland Enhancement

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 4
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits (continued)
Heron Restoration Site

Length & Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level Stream (linear footage) Riparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration 4024* 0.35
Enhancement (Level I) 1182** --
Enhancement (Level II) 1131 --
Enhancement -- 0.61
*An additional 159 linear feet of stream restoration is proposed to occur outside of the conservation easement and is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit
calculations.
**An additional 52 linear feet of stream enhancement (level I) is proposed to occur outside of the conservation easement and is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation
credit calculations.

Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category Overall Credits
Stream 5264
Riparian Riverine Wetland 0.66

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Heron Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-006990) January 11, 2017 January 11, 2017
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100014) -- May 22, 2017
Mitigation Plan -- July 2018
Construction Plans -- --

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 5
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Heron Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Worth Creech
919-755-9490
Designer Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis
919-215-1693

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Heron Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name Heron Restoration Site
Project County Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres) 17.5
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude) 35.853955ºN, -79.363458ºW
Planted Area (acres) 12.05
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Project River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit) 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres) 14 to 96
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is
Impervious <2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover & Mixed Upland Hardwoods

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 6
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Section 4. Project Attribute Table
Heron Restoration Site (continued)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1 UT2 UT 3 UT4 UT 5 UT6 UT 7 UT 8
Length of reach (linear feet) 1155 363 269 485 907 683 202 1221
Valley Classification & Confinement Alluvial, confined
Drainage Area (acres) 96.4 7.1 11.7 17.2 38.1 14.1 20.9 30.8
NCDWR Stream ID Score 30.5 22.5 28.5 33.5 27.5 23.5 24.5 27.5
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Perennial/
Intermittent Perennial Perennial/
Intermittent
Perennial/
Intermittent Intermittent Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description
(Rosgen 1996) Cg5 Gf5 Cg5 Eg5 Eg5 Cg5 Cg5 Eg5
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen
1996) C/E 4 Gf 5 C/E 4 C/E 4 C/E 4 C/E 4 Eb4 C/E 4
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and
Hupp 1986) III/IV I/III/IV III/IV II/III II/III III/IV III/IV II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils Alamance silt loam, Georgeville silt loam, Goldston slaty silt loam, Herndon silt loam, Orange silt loam, Worsham sandy
loam, Local Alluvial Land,
Drainage Class Well-drained, well-drained, well-drained, well-drained, well drained, poorly-drained, poorly-drained
Hydric Soil Status Nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, hydric, hydric, respectively
Valley Slope 0.0074 0.0270 0.0222 0.0244 0.0358 0.0300 0.0255 0.0218
FEMA Classification NA
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site) 43% forest,55% agricultural land, <2% low density residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover
(Cedarock Reference Channel) 65% forest, 30% agricultural land, <5% low density residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive
Vegetation <5%

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 7
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Heron Restoration Site (continued)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetlands
Wetland acreage 0.35 acre drained & 0.61 acre degraded
Wetland Type Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series Worsham and Local Alluvial Land
Drainage Class Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment Incised streams, compacted soils, livestock
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
% Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%
Restoration Method Hydrologic, vegetative, livestock
Enhancement Method Vegetative, livestock
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes JD Package (App D)
Waters of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes JD Package (App D)
Endangered Species Act No -- CE Document (App E)
Historic Preservation Act No -- CE Document (App E)
Coastal Zone Management Act No -- NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No -- CE Document (App E)
Essential Fisheries Habitat No -- NA
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The Cape Fear River basin is one of four rivers in North Carolina completely contained within the
state’s boundaries. Comprised of five major drainages—Haw River, Deep River, Northeast Cape
Fear River, Black River, and the Cape Fear River—the basin drains portions of 26 counties and
115 municipalities with a total of 6386 stream miles. The most populated portions of the basin are
located in the Triad, the Triangle, Fayetteville, and Wilmington (NCDWQ 2005).

Primary considerations for Site selection included the potential for improvement of water quality
within a region of North Carolina under heavy development and livestock/agricultural pressure.
More specifically, considerations included: desired aquatic resource functions; hydrologic
conditions; soil characteristics; aquatic habitat diversity; habitat connectivity; compatibility with
adjacent land uses; reasonably foreseeable effects the mitigation project will have on ecologically
important aquatic and terrestrial resources; and potential development trends and land use changes.
Site specific characteristics are summarized below, in addition to development trends and land use
changes within the watershed.

Currently, the proposed Site is characterized by disturbed forest and agricultural land used for
livestock grazing and hay production. A summary of existing Site characteristics in favor of
proposed stream and wetland activities include the following.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 8
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
• Streams and wetlands are accessible to livestock
• Stream banks are trampled by livestock
• Streams and wetlands have been cleared of forest vegetation
• Streams have been impounded
• Site receives nonpoint source inputs including agricultural chemicals and livestock waste
• Wetland soils have been compacted by livestock and agricultural equipment
• Wetland hydrology has been removed by stream channel entrenchment
• Streams are classified as nutrient sensitive waters

In addition to the opportunity for ecological improvements at the Site, the use of the particular
mitigation activities and methods proposed in the Design Approach & Mitigation Work Plan
(Section 7.0) are expected to produce naturalized stream and wetland resources that will be
ecologically self-sustaining, requiring minimal long-term management (Long-term Management
Plan [Section 10.0]).

Development Trends and Land Use Changes in Cape Fear 03030002 (Cape Fear 02)
Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, the Cape Fear 02 population increased approximately 17
percent. The general trend of population growth appears to be continuing according to recent
population estimates, which indicate Guilford, Orange, Chatham, and Durham counties are all
growing at faster annual rates than North Carolina’s 1.02 percent (USCB 2013). These data
suggest land development activities will increase in frequency, as will aquatic ecosystem impacts
related to such development. Therefore, there is an immediate and prolonged need for
compensatory stream mitigation in the watershed. Of further benefit, aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects are capable of reducing nutrient loading in sensitive downstream receiving
waters such as Jordan Lake.

According to the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2005), all land uses
and discharges of wastewater and stormwater in the Cape Fear 02 subbasin 03-06-04 potentially
contribute nutrients to B. Everett Jordan Lake. B. Everett Jordan Lake provides low-flow
augmentation, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water supply. The lake is
impaired for aquatic life due to excessive levels of chlorophyll a in violation of current standards
in all segments of the reservoir. In addition, the Site has a supplemental water quality classification
of Nutrient Sensitive Waters, which designates areas with water quality problems associated with
excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment. The proposed mitigation activities will
reduce sediment and nutrient levels, and improve water quality within the Site and downstream
watersheds.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 9
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 5. Watershed Stressors and Usage Ratings
Site Subbasin Index # Receiving Water NCDWR Rating 303(d) status*
Pine Hill Branch 03-06-04 16-28-5-1 Cane Creek WS-V, NSW NL
South Fork 03-06-04 16-28-5 Cane Creek WS-V, NSW NL
*Draft 2016 and Final 2014 303(d) status (NCDWR 2014, NCDWR 2016b); NL = Not Listed

Project goals are based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report
(NCEEP 2009) and on-site data collection of channel morphology and function observed during
field investigations. The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
03030002050050 (Figure 2, Appendix A). The RBRP report documents benthic ratings vary
between “Fair” and “Good-Fair” possibly due to cattle, dairy, and poultry operations. The project
is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however, RBRP goals are
addressed by project activities as follows with Site specific information following the RBRP goals
in parenthesis.

1. Reduce and control sediment inputs (sediment model – reduction of 67.3 tons/year after
mitigation is complete);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (nutrient model - livestock removal from streams,
elimination of fertilizer application, and marsh treatment areas will result in a direct
reduction of 893.2 pounds of nitrogen, 47.0 pounds of phosphorus per year, and 9.4x1011
colonies of fecal coliform);
3. Protect and augment designated natural heritage areas.

Site specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North
Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) and are discussed further in Section 6.0 (Functional Uplift and Project
Goals/Objectives).
3.0 REFERENCE STREAMS
Two reference reaches were identified for the Site. The first reference stream (Cedarock) is located
approximately 10 miles northeast of the Site in Cedarock Park on an unnamed tributary to Rock
Creek (Figure 5A, Appendix A). The second reference stream (Causey Farm) is located less than
11 miles northeast of the Site, immediately north of Causey Airport on unnamed tributaries to
Stinking Quarter Creek. The Causey Farm reference was measured in 2004 as a reference reach
for the Causey Farm stream mitigation project, which was a successful project through five years
of monitoring with no issues. The streams were measured and classified by stream type (Rosgen
1996). Stream data is available for the Causey Farm reference; however, no figures were available
for inclusion with this document.
3.1 Channel Classification
The reference reaches are both characterized as E-type streams; Cedarock is a moderately sinuous
(1.2) channel dominated by gravel substrate and Causey Farm had slightly higher sinuousity
channel, due to a lower valley slope, with a sand-dominated substrate.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 10
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
3.2 Discharge
Field indicators of bankfull approximate an average discharge of 31.3 and 59.8 cfs, respectively
for the Cedar Fork and Causey Farm reference reaches, which is 108 and 94 percent of that
predicted by the regional curves.
3.3 Channel Morphology
Dimension: Data collected at Cedarock and Causey Farm indicate bankfull cross-sectional areas
of 8.0 and 14.7 square feet, respectively. Cedarock was slightly larger than predicted by regional
curves (7.5 square feet) and Causey Farm was slightly smaller than predicted by regional curves
(15.7 square feet). Cedarock and Causey exhibit a bankfull width of 8.1 and 11.0, a bankfull depth
of 0.8 and 1.4 feet, and width-to-depth ratios of 10.1 and 9.0, respectively (see Table B1,
Morphological Stream Characteristics). Figure 5C (Appendix A) provides plan view and cross-
sectional data for the Cedarock reference reach. The reference reaches exhibit a bank-height ratio
of 1.0 and 1.4, respectively. The Causey Farm reference reach was slightly incised; however,
defined bankfull indicators were present, which assisted with determining the appropriate cross-
sectional area.

Pattern and Profile: In-field measurements of the reference reaches have yielded an average
sinuosity of 1.2 at Cedarock and 1.45 at Causey Farm (thalweg distance/straight-line distance).
Onsite valley slopes of Site restoration reaches range from 0.0185-0.0241. Valley slopes exhibited
by reference channels range from slightly higher (0.0310 at Cedarock) than the Site to slightly
lower (0.0077 at Causey Farm), providing a good range of slopes to compare existing and proposed
Site conditions. Although slightly incised, the Causey Farm reference reach had a suitable pattern
with no shoot cutoffs, eroding outer bends, or excessively tight radius of curvatures, in addition to
appropriate pool-to-pool spacing and meander wavelengths.

Substrate: Reference channels are characterized by substrate dominated by gravel and sand sized
particles, respectively.
4.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
4.1 Soils and Land Form
Soils that occur within the Site, according to the Web Soil Survey (USDA 2016) are described in
Table 6.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 11
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 6. Web Soil Survey Soils Mapped within the Site
Soil Series Hydric
Status Description
Alamance
silt loam
(AaB)
Nonhydric
This series consist of moderately well-drained soils found on interfluves. These
soils derived from residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite. Depth
to restrictive features is 20-40 inches to paralithic bedrock and 40-80 inches to
lithic bedrock. Depth to the water table is about 18-36 inches. Slopes are typically
2-6 percent.
Congaree
fine sandy
loam (Cg)
Nonhydric
This series consist of frequently flooded, moderately well-drained soils found on
floodplains. These soils are loamy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock. Depth to restrictive features is more than 80 inches. Depth to
the water table is about 30-48 inches. Slopes are typically 0-2 percent.
Efland silt
loam (EaB2) Nonhydric
This series consist of eroded, well-drained soils found on interfluves. These soils
derived from residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite. Depth to
restrictive features is 20-40 inches to paralithic bedrock and 40-80 inches to lithic
bedrock. Depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. Slopes are typically 2-6
percent.
Georgeville
silt loam
(GaC,
GaC2, GaE)
Nonhydric
This series consists of eroded, well-drained soils found on hillslopes on ridges.
These soils derived from residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite.
Depth to restrictive features depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. Slopes
are typically 6-25 percent.
Goldston
channery silt
loam (GcD,
GcE)
Nonhydric
This series consists of well-drained soils found on hillslopes on ridges. These soils
derived from residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite. Depth to
restrictive features is 10-20 inches to paralithic bedrock and 20-40 inches to lithic
bedrock. Depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. Slopes are typically 10-
25 percent.
Herndon silt
loam (HdC,
HdC2)
Nonhydric
This series consists of eroded, well-drained soils that soils formed from residuum
weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite. They are on hillslopes on ridges.
Depth to restrictive features and the water table is more than 80 inches. Slopes are
6-10 percent.
Local
alluvial
land, poorly
drained (Lc)
Hydric
This series consists of poorly drained soils found on floodplains and formed of
loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock. Depth to restrictive
features is more than 80 inches and the water table is about 0-12 inches. Slopes
range from 0-2 percent.
Orange silt
loam (ObC,
ObB, ObB2)
Nonhydric
This series consists of moderately well-drained soils found on hillslopes on ridges.
These soils derived from residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite.
Depth to restrictive features is 20-40 inches to paralithic bedrock and 40-80 inches
to lithic bedrock. Depth to the water table is about 12-36 inches. Slopes are 2-10
percent.
Worsham
sandy loam
(Wd)
Hydric
This series consists of poorly drained soils found in depressions and formed of
alluvium and/or colluvium over saprolite derived from granite and gneiss. Depth to
restrictive features is more than 80 inches and the water table is about 0-12 inches.
Slopes range from 2-6 percent.

Hydric soils and jurisdictional wetlands were delineated and mapped by a licensed soil scientist in
November 2016. Based on soil delineations approximately 0.61 acre of disturbed jurisdictional
wetland occur within the Site boundaries. Wetlands have been disturbed by livestock grazing and

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 12
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
clearing of vegetation within pastureland. In addition, 0.35 acre of drained hydric soil occurs
within the Site boundaries. These hydric soils have been effectively drained by stream channel
incision and/or relocation of stream channels to the margins of the floodplain.
4.2 Sediment Model
Sediment load modeling was performed using methodologies outlined in A Practical Method of
Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (Rosgen 2009) along with Estimating Sediment Loads using
the Bank Assessment of Non-point Sources Consequences of Sediment (Rosgen 2011). These
models provide a quantitative prediction of streambank erosions by calculating Bank Erosion
Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near-Bank Stress (NBS) along each Site reach. The resulting BEHI
and NBS values are then compared to streambank erodibility graphs prepared for North Carolina
by the NC Stream Restoration Institute and NC Sea Grant.

Streambank characteristics involve measurements of bank height, angles, materials, presence of
layers, rooting depth, rooting density, and percent of the bank protected by rocks, logs, roots, or
vegetation. Site reaches have been measured for each BEHI and NBS characteristic and predicted
lateral erosion rate, height, and length to calculate a cubic volume of sediment contributed by the
reach each year. Data forms for the analysis are available upon request and the data output is
presented in Appendix B. Results of the model are presented in the following table.

Table 7. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary
Stream Reach Proposed Mitigation Treatment Predicted Sediment
Contribution
(tons/year)
UT 1 Restoration/Enhancement (Level I) 23.2
UT 2 Restoration/Enhancement (Level II) 1.7
UT 3 Restoration 13.6
UT 4 Restoration 3.8
UT 5 Restoration/Enhancement (Level II) 0.9
UT 6 Restoration 13.2
UT 7 Restoration/Enhancement (Level I) 1.5
UT 8 Restoration/Enhancement (Level II) 9.5
Total Sediment Contribution (tons/year) 67.3

Based on this analysis, mitigation of Site streams will reduce streambank erosion and subsequent
pollution of receiving waters.
4.3 Nutrient Model
Nutrient modeling was conducted using a method developed by NCDMS (NCDMS 2016) to
determine nutrient and fecal coliform reductions from exclusion of livestock from the buffer.

The equation for nutrient reduction for this model includes the following:

TN reduction (lbs/yr) = 51.04 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (lbs/yr) = 4.23 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 13
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Where:
TN – total nitrogen;
TP – total phosphorus; and
Area – total area of restored riparian buffers inside of livestock exclusion fences.

Equations for fecal coliform reduction for this model include the following.

Fecal coliform reduction (col) = 2.2 x 1011 (col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085

Where:
Col - quantities of Fecal Coliform bacteria
AU - animal unit (1000 lbs of livestock)

Results of the NCDMS analysis indicate approximately 893.2 lbs/yr of nitrogen, 47.0 lbs/yr of
phosphorus, and 9.4 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day may be reduced due to exclusion of livestock
from the easement area.
4.4 Project Site Streams
Streams targeted for restoration include unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch and South Fork
Cane Creek, which have been cleared, dredged of cobble substrate, straightened, trampled by
livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and receive extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from
livestock. Approximately 62 percent of the existing stream channel has been degraded
contributing to sediment export from the Site resulting from mechanical processes from livestock
hoof shear. In addition, streamside wetlands have been cleared and drained by channel
downcutting and land uses. Current Site conditions have resulted in degraded water quality, a loss
of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable channel characteristics
(loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to channel
bed and banks). Site restoration activities will restore riffle-pool morphology, aid in energy
dissipation, increase aquatic habitat, stabilize channel banks, and greatly reduce sediment loss from
channel banks.
4.4.1 Existing Conditions Survey
Site stream dimension, pattern, and profile were measured to characterize existing channel
conditions. Locations of existing stream reaches are depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A) and cross-
section locations are depicted in Figure B1 (Appendix B). Stream geometry measurements under
existing conditions are summarized in Table 8 (Essential Morphology Paramaters) and presented
in detail in Table B1 (Appendix B).

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 14
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Table 8. Essential Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Reference
UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4 UT5 UT6 UT7 UT8 Cedarock
Park
Causey
Farm
Valley Width (ft) 50-100 20-50 50-100 50-100 50-100 50-100 20-50 50-100 50-100 150-200
Contributing Drainage Area (sq.
mi.) 0.13 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.21 0.63
Channel/Reach Classification Cg5 Gf 4/5 Cg5 Eg5 Eg5 Cg5 Cg5 Eg5 Eb4 E5
Design Discharge Width (ft) 4.7-11.1 3.9 3.2-5.9 3.1-4.9 2.5-6.0 4.6-9.6 4.1-6.7 4.2-6.1 8.1 11.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.5-1.1 0.3–0.7 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.3-0.7 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.5 0.4-0.6 0.8 1.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 5.1 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.0 2.5 8.0 14.7
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 3.8 1.9 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 4.1
Design Discharge Discharge (cfs) 19.3 19.3 5.0 7.3 5.5 5.2 7.0 9.1 28.8 60.6
Water Surface Slope 0.0057 0.017 0.0207 0.0283 0.0372 0.0280 0.0248 0.0210 0.0258 0.0053
Sinuosity 1.30 1.14 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.07 1.03 1.04 1.20 1.46
Width/Depth Ratio 4.3-22.0 10-24 8-29.5 5.2-12.3 3.6-20.0 15.3-48.0 8.2-22.3 7.0-15.3 10.1 9.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.4-2.5 3-3.7 1.7-2.4 1.3-4.0 1.3-2.7 3.7-7.5 1.8-4.1 1.4-3.7 1.0 1.4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6-4.3 1.4-2.0 1.4-3.8 1.3-6.1 1.4-7.3 1.1-4.8 1.7-5.2 1.1-4.9 2.1 12
Substrate Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Gravel Sand

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 15
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 8 (continued). Essential Morphology Parameters
Parameter Proposed
UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4 UT5 UT6 UT7 UT8
Valley Width (ft) 50-100 20-50 50-100 50-100 50-100 50-100 20-50 50-100
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.) 0.13 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05
Channel/Reach Classification E/C4 Gf 4/5 E/C4 E/C4 E/C4 E/C4 Eb4 E/C4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 8.4 3.9 4.4 5.0 5.0 4.6 5.3 5.9
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.6 0.3–0.7 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 5.1 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.0 2.5
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 3.8 1.9 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6
Design Discharge Discharge (cfs) 19.3 19.3 5.0 7.3 5.5 5.2 7.0 9.1
Water Surface Slope 0.0057 0.017 0.0193 0.0311 0.0311 0.0261 0.0222 0.0190
Sinuosity 1.30 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
Width/Depth Ratio 14.0 10-24 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 3-3.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 8.9 1.4-2.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.9 9.4 8.5
Substrate Gravel Sand Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 16
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
4.4.2 Channel Classification and Morphology
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify existing stream conditions
based on a classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). Existing Site
reaches are classified as unstable Cg- and Eg-type streams with variable sinuosity. Existing Site
reaches are characterized by sand substrate as the result of channel impacts including livestock
trampling, channel straightening, and riparian vegetation removal.
4.4.3 Channel Evolution
Site streams targeted for restoration have been channelized and are continually trampled by
livestock resulting primarily in channels classified as channelized (Class II), degraded (Class III),
and degraded and widened (Class IV) channels throughout the Site (Simon and Hupp 1986).
4.4.4 Valley Classification
The Site is characterized by small stream, headwater, confined, alluvial valleys with approximately
20- to 100-foot floodplain valley widths. Valley slopes of restoration reaches are typical for the
Piedmont region and range from 0.0074-0.0358. Typical streams in this region include C- and E-
type streams with slightly entrenched, meandering channels with a riffle-pool sequence. However,
steeper slopes may trend towards B-type, bedrock confined, step-pool streams.
4.4.5 Discharge
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 40-50 inches per year (USDA 1960). Drainage basin sizes range from 0.02- to
0.15-square mile.

The Site’s discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater
flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999), the bankfull discharge for
the Site (0.02- to 0.15-square mile watershed) ranges from 5.0 to 21.0 cubic feet per second. Based
on indicators of bankfull at reference reaches and on-Site, the designed channel will equal
approximately 93 percent of the channel size indicated by Piedmont regional curves; this is
discussed in Section 4.6 (Bankfull Verification).
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed or do not approach the
resisting forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a function of relative
magnitude of these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of open channels
is only imperfectly understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this interaction have
yet to be developed for conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of characterizing these
processes rely heavily upon empirical formulas.

Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories: 1)
maximum permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The former
is advantageous in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream power cannot
be measured directly and must be computed from various flow parameters. However, stream

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 17
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
power and shear stress are generally better measures of fluid force on the channel boundary than
velocity.

Stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged and straightened reaches, 2)
the reference reaches, and 3) proposed Site conditions. Important input values and output results
(including stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear power and shear stress) are presented in
Table 9. Average stream velocity and bankfull discharge values were calculated for the existing
Site stream reaches, the reference reach, and proposed conditions.

In order to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system, the proposed channel
should exhibit stream power and shear stress values so the channel is neither aggrading nor
degrading. Results of the analysis indicate the proposed channel reaches are expected to maintain
stream power as a function of width values of approximately 0.82-2.83 and shear stress values of
approximately 0.19-0.60 (Table 9).

Table 9. Stream Power (Ω) and Shear Stress (τ) Values

Bankfull
Discharge
(ft3/s)
Water
surface
Slope
(ft/ft)
Total
Stream
Power
(Ω) Ω/W
Hydraulic
Radius
Shear
Stress
(τ)
Velocity
(v) τ v τmax
Existing Conditions
UT1 19.3 0.0057 6.86 0.81 1.72 0.61 1.13 0.69 0.92
UT3 5.0 0.0207 6.46 1.44 1.10 1.42 0.89 1.27 2.13
UT4 5.5 0.0344 11.81 3.19 1.30 2.79 0.90 2.51 4.18
UT5 7.3 0.0344 15.67 4.24 1.30 2.79 1.20 3.33 4.18
UT6 5.2 0.0280 9.09 1.42 8.11 14.18 0.09 1.30 21.27
UT7 7.0 0.0248 10.83 2.04 1.52 2.36 0.75 1.78 3.54
UT8 9.1 0.0210 11.92 2.34 1.41 1.85 1.06 1.95 2.77
Reference Conditions
Cedarock 28.8 0.0258 46.37 5.72 0.82 1.33 3.60 4.78 6.67
Causey Farm 60.6 0.0053 20.04 1.82 1.07 0.35 4.12 1.45 2.10
Proposed Conditions
UT1 19.3 0.0057 6.86 0.82 0.53 0.19 3.78 0.72 0.28
UT3 5.0 0.0193 6.02 1.37 0.28 0.34 3.57 1.20 0.51
UT4 5.5 0.0311 10.67 2.13 0.31 0.60 3.06 1.84 0.90
UT5 7.3 0.0311 14.17 2.83 0.31 0.60 4.06 2.44 0.90
UT6 5.2 0.0261 8.47 1.84 0.29 0.47 3.47 1.63 0.70
UT7 7.0 0.0222 9.70 1.83 0.33 0.45 3.50 1.59 0.68
UT8 9.1 0.0190 10.79 1.83 0.37 0.44 3.64 1.61 0.66

Cedarock reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are higher due to steeper valley
and water surface slopes resulting in higher stream power and shear stress values. Causey Farm

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 18
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are slightly lower due to flatter valley and
water surface slopes resulting in slightly lower stream power and shear stress values.

Existing, Site streams are characterized by a wide range of water surface slopes and varying
degrees of degradation. In general, stream power values of existing streams are slightly elevated
as compared to proposed values, and shear stress values of existing streams are significantly
elevated as compared to proposed and reference reach values. Proposed stream power and shear
stress values appear adequate to mobilize and transport sediment through the Site, without
aggradation or erosion on proposed stream banks.
4.6 Bankfull Verification
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of “bankfull” and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the
channel dimensions designed to support the “channel forming” or “dominant” discharge (Gordon
et al. 1992).

Based on available Piedmont regional curves, the predicted bankfull discharge for the reference
reaches averages approximately 28.8 and 63.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) for Cedarock and Causey
Farm, respectively (Harmen et al. 1999). The USGS regional regression equation for the Piedmont
region indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reaches at a 1.3-1.5 year return interval
average approximately 27-32 and 53-65 cfs, respectively (USGS 2006).

Field indicators of bankfull, primarily topographic breaks identified on the banks, and riffle cross-
sections were utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross-sectional area for the reference reaches.
The Piedmont regional curves were then utilized to plot the watershed area and discharge for the
reference reach cross-sectional area. Field indicators of bankfull approximate an average
discharge of 31.3 and 59.8 cfs, respectively for the reference reaches, which is 108 and 94 percent
of that predicted by the regional curves; which is verified by the range approximated by the USGS
regional regression equation.

Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at
the Site will be based on reference reaches, onsite indicators of bankfull (UT 4 several cross-
sections Appendix B), and indicators of bankfull on a cross-section located in an undisturbed reach
located at the Abbey Lamm Mitigation Site (located less than 2 miles northwest of the Site and
currently in its third year of successful monitoring). Indicators of bankfull were used at the Abbey
Lamm Mitigation Site to compare the bankfull cross-sectional area to that predicted by the curves;
however, a detailed reference reach analysis was not appropriate. Based on field indicators of
bankfull on-Site (93 percent of the curves), and the Causey Farm Reference Reach (94 percent of
the curves) and Abbey Lamm Mitigation Site (90 percent of the curves), the designed onsite
channel restoration area will equal approximately 93 percent of the channel size indicated by
Piedmont regional curves. Table 10 summarizes all methods analyzed for estimating bankfull
discharge.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 19
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 10. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Method
Watershed Area
(square miles)
Return Interval
(years)
Discharge
(cfs)
Cedarock Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
(Harman et al. 1999) 0.2 1.3-1.5 28.8
Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2004) 0.2 1.3-1.5 27-32
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.2 1.3-1.5 31.3
Causey Farm Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
(Harman et al. 1999) 0.6 1.3-1.5 63.8
Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2004) 0.6 1.3-1.5 53-65
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.6 1.3-1.5 59.8

5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
5.1 Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands/hydric soils within the Site were delineated in the field following
guidelines set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent
regional supplements, and located using GPS technology with reported submeter accuracy
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). A jurisdictional wetland delineation was completed and
verbally approved by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) representative David
Bailey during a field meeting on October 13, 2017; the signed Notification of Jurisdictional
Determination dated December 21, 2017 can be found in Appendix D. Existing jurisdictional
wetlands are depicted in green and drained hydric soils are depicted in pink on Figure 4 (Appendix
A).
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Construction activities are expected to restore approximately 0.35 acre of drained riparian hydric
soils, and enhance 0.61 acre of cleared riparian wetlands. Areas of the Site targeted for riparian
wetlands will receive hydrological inputs from periodic overbank flooding of restored tributaries,
groundwater migration into wetlands, upland/stormwater runoff, and, to a lesser extent, direct
precipitation. Hydrological impairment in drained soils has resulted from lateral draw-down of
the water table adjacent to existing, incised stream channels.
5.3 Soil Characterization
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification
Detailed soil mapping conducted by a North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist (NCLSS) in
November 2016 indicate that the Site is currently underlain by hydric soils of the Worsham Series
(Figure 4, Appendix A). Wetlands have been disturbed by livestock grazing and cleared of

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 20
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
vegetation within pastureland. These hydric soils have been effectively drained by stream channel
incision or relocation of stream channels to the floodplain margins.

Onsite hydric soils are grey to gley in color and are compacted and pockmarked by livestock
trampling. Livestock trampling, grazing, and clearing has resulted in an herbaceous vegetative
community. Groundwater springs and surface runoff contribute hydrology to these areas, although
the dominant hydrological influence is the lateral draw-down of the water table adjacent to incised
stream channels or streams relocated to the floodplain margins. A detailed soil profile conducted
by a NCLSS is as follows; the location is depicted on Figure 4 (Appendix A).
5.3.2 Profile Description
Depth (inches) Color Texture
0 - 3 10 YR 4/4 Fine sandy loam
3 - 18 10 YR 7/2
10 YR 7/1 mottles 20%
10YR 6/1 mottles 10%
Sandy loam
18 + 10 YR 7/2
10 YR 7/1 mottles 20%
10 YR 5/6 mottles 20%
Sandy loam
5.4 Plant Community Characterization
Areas proposed for wetland restoration and enhancement are primarily vegetated by fescue and
opportunistic herbaceous species with very little vegetative diversity.
5.5 Reference Forest Ecosystem
A Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) is a forested area on which to model restoration efforts at
the Site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax communities
and should be a representative model of the Site as it likely existed prior to human disturbances.
Data describing plant community composition and structure should be collected at the RFEs and
subsequently applied as reference data in an attempt to emulate a natural climax community.

The RFE for this project is located 2.5 miles northwest of the Site at the Abbey Lamm Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site. The RFE supports plant community and landform characteristics that
restoration efforts will attempt to emulate. Tree and shrub species identified within the reference
forest and outlined in Table 11 will be used, in addition to other relevant species in appropriate
Schafale and Weakley (1990) community descriptions.

Table 11. Reference Forest Ecosystem
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
red maple (Acer rubrum) black gum (Nyssa sylvatica))
tag alder (Alnus serrulata) black cherry (Prunus serotina)
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) white oak (Quercus alba)
pignut hickory (Carya glabra) swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) water oak (Quercus nigra)
eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) willow oak (Quercus phellos)
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) slippery elm (Ulmus rubra)

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 21
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

6.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT AND PROJECT GOALS/OBJECTIVES
Project goals are based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report
(NCEEP 2009) and on-site data collection of channel morphology and function observed during
field investigations. The RBRP report documents benthic ratings vary between “Fair” and “Good-
Fair” possibly due to cattle, dairy, and poultry operations. The project is not located in a Regional
or Local Watershed Planning Area; however, RBRP goals are addressed by project activities as
follows with Site specific information following the RBRP goals in parenthesis.

1. Reduce and control sediment inputs (sediment model [Section 4.2] – reduction of 67.3
tons/year after mitigation is complete);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (nutrient model [Section 4.3]- livestock removal from
streams, elimination of fertilizer application, and marsh treatment areas will result in a
direct reduction of 893.2 pounds of nitrogen and 47.0 pounds of phosphorus per year);

Site specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North
Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) analyses of existing and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC
WFAT 2010). These methodologies rate functional metrics for streams and wetlands as high,
medium, or low based on field data collected on forms and transferred into a rating calculator.
Using Boolean logic, the rating calculator assigns a high, medium, or low value for each metric
and overall function. Site functional assessment data forms are available upon request and model
output is included in Appendix B.

Tables 12A and 12B summarize NC SAM and NC WAM metrics targeted for functional uplift and
the corresponding mitigation activities proposed to provide functional uplift. Metrics targeted to
meet the Site’s goals and objectives are depicted in bold.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 22
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 12A. Heron Site NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating
Summary
UT 1
(Up)
UT1
(Down)* UT4 UT5 Reference
(1) HYDROLOGY LOW LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access LOW LOW HIGH MEDIUM HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(4) Channel Stability LOW LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorophology HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
(1) WATER QUALITY MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM LOW HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
(2) Stream-side Area Vegetation LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM LOW HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES YES YES NO
(1) HABITAT LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(3) In-Stream Habitat LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW HIGH
OVERALL LOW LOW MEDIUM LOW HIGH
*Functional assessments completed on UT1 (Down) were used to determine potential functional uplift for UT3 due to similarities
of the channels. UT2 is primarily proposed for enhancement (Level II) with the exception of a short reach that is proposed for
restoration prior to tying into UT1.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 23
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Table 12A continued. Heron Site NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating
Summary UT6 UT7 UT8 Reference
(1) HYDROLOGY LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM LOW LOW HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH
(4) Channel Stability LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorophology HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
(1) WATER QUALITY MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH MEDIUM HIGH
(2) Stream-side Area Vegetation LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM LOW HIGH HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES YES NO
(1) HABITAT LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH MEDIUM HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW HIGH MEDIUM HIGH
(3) In-Stream Habitat LOW LOW LOW HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW HIGH HIGH
OVERALL LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Based on NC SAM output, all three primary stream functional metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality,
and Habitat), as well as 19 sub metrics are under-performing as exhibited by a LOW metric rating.
These same metrics measured in a relatively undisturbed reference reach exhibit HIGH metric
ratings (see Figure 4, Appendix A for NC SAM data reaches). LOW performing metrics are to be
targeted for functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals and objectives, as well as,
monitoring and success criteria.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 24
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 12B. Heron Site NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub-function Rating Summary K1* K2 K3
Wetland Type HF HF HF
(1) HYDROLOGY HIGH HIGH HIGH
(2) Surface Storage & Retention HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Sub-surface Storage and Retention HIGH HIGH HIGH
(1) WATER QUALITY HIGH LOW HIGH
(2) Pathogen change HIGH HIGH HIGH
(2) Particulate Change HIGH LOW LOW
(2) Soluble change MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Physical Change HIGH LOW HIGH
(1) HABITAT MEDIUM LOW LOW
(2) Physical Structure HIGH LOW LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure LOW LOW LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
OVERALL HIGH LOW HIGH
Wetland Type - HF (Hardwood Forest)
* Reference Wetland – Slated for Enhancement
NC WAM forms are filled out for wetland enhancement areas. Wetland restoration areas are not
able to be rated by the NC SAM methodology.

Table 12C outlines stream and wetland functions targeted for functional uplift, goals that are tied
to the specific functions, and objectives to be completed to achieve the proposed goals.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 25
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 12C. Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain Access) • Attenuate flood flow across the Site.
• Minimize downstream flooding to the
maximum extent possible.
• Connect streams to functioning wetland
systems.
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
and restore jurisdictional wetlands
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Remove livestock
• Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface roughness
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability • Increase stream stability within the Site
so that channels are neither aggrading nor
degrading.
• Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile
• Remove livestock
• Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
• Remove direct nutrient and pollutant
inputs from the Site and reduce
contributions to downstream waters.
• Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
• Install marsh treatment areas
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Provide surface roughness through deep ripping/plowing
• Restore overbank flooding by establishing proper channel dynamics
• Cessation of municipal land application
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
Wetland Particulate Change
Wetland Physical Change
(1) HABITAT
(2) In-stream Habitat
• Improve instream and stream-side
habitat.
• Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
and plant woody riparian buffer
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams

(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-Stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
Wetland Physical Structure
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 26
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
7.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Stream Design
Onsite streams targeted for restoration have endured significant disturbance from land use
activities such as land clearing, livestock grazing, straightening and rerouting of channels, and
other anthropogenic maintenance. Site streams will be restored to emulate historic conditions at
the Site utilizing parameters from nearby, relatively undisturbed reference streams (see Section
3.0 Reference Streams).

Primary activities designed to restore Site streams include 1) stream restoration, 2) stream
enhancement (Level I), 3) stream enhancement (Level II), 4) wetland restoration, 5) wetland
enhancement, 6) construction of marsh treatment areas, and 5) vegetation planting (Figures 6A-
6D, Appendix A).
7.1.1 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates hydrodynamics,
stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. Restoration at the
Site will be Priority I restoration; therefore, bankfull elevations will be raised to meet the adjacent
valley floodplain elevation.

Stream restoration is expected to entail 1) channel excavation, 2) removal of an agriculture pond,
3) spoil stockpiling, 4) channel stabilization, 5) channel diversion, and 6) channel backfill.

In-stream Structures
The use of in-stream structures for grade control and habitat is essential for successful stream
restoration (Figure 8A, Appendix A). In-stream structures may be placed in the channel to elevate
local water surface profiles in the channel, potentially flattening the water energy slope or gradient
and directing stream energy into the center of the channel and away from banks. The structures
will consist of log cross-vanes or log j-hook vanes; however, at the discretion of the Engineer, rock
cross-vanes or rock j-hook vanes may be substituted if dictated by field conditions. In addition,
the structures will placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow
cells during bankfull events.

Piped Channel Crossings
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of three piped channel crossings within
breaks in the easement to allow access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration
activities. The crossings may be constructed of properly sized pipes and hydraulically stable rip-
rap or suitable rock. Crossings will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated vehicular
traffic. Approach grades to the crossing will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and constructed of
hard, scour-resistant crushed rock or other permeable material, which is free of fines.

Outfall Structures
Four drop structure are proposed at the outfall of the UT5, UT6, and UT8 restoration reaches, and
the outfall of the UT7 enhancement (level I) reach. The drop structures may be constructed out of
Terracell, or large cobble depending upon anticipated scour from the restored stream channels

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 27
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
(Figure 8B, Appendix A). The structures should be constructed to resist erosive forces associated
with hydraulic drops proposed at the Site.

Marsh Treatment Areas
Six shallow wetland marsh treatment areas will be excavated in the floodplain to intercept surface
waters draining through agricultural areas prior to discharging into the Site. Marsh treatment areas
are intended to improve the mitigation project and are not generating mitigation credit. The
proposed marsh treatment area location is depicted on Figures 6A-6D (Appendix A) and will
consist of shallow depressions that will provide treatment and attenuation of initial stormwater
pulses (Figure 8B, Appendix A). The outfall will be constructed of hydraulically stable rip-rap or
other suitable material that will protect against headcut migration into the constructed depression.
It is expected that the treatment area will fill with sediment and organic matter over time.

Powerline relocation
An existing powerline services an agriculture complex including a livestock barn. The powerline
parallels the UT 7 stream bank and crosses both UT 7 and UT 6 in its current location.
Coordination with Randolph Electric Membership Corporation has been initiated to move the
powerline upstream, and outside of the UT 6 and UT 7 easement. A copy of the Utility Work
Agreement with the Randolph Electric Membership Corporation is included in Appendix J. Work
to be conducted under the Utility Work Agreement will be initiated upon approval of this Detailed
Restoration Plan.

City of Burlington Map Modification for Land Application
Agriculture fields adjacent to, and west of, UT 8 have been utilized by the City of Burlington for
the application of municipal waste. Communication with the City of Burlington Residuals
Management Coordinator has been ongoing throughout the design process to update maps (map
NC-AM – 16 [Michael Hadley]) such that land application of municipal waste will cease within,
and immediately adjacent to, UT 8. Communications of the successful modification to City of
Burlington maps are included in appendix K.
7.1.2 Stream Enhancement (Level I)
Stream enhancement (Level I) is proposed on the upper reach of UT1 and along the majority of
UT7. The channels will be enhanced by raising the channel bed to the historic floodplain,
constructing a channel to the appropriate dimension, installing habitat/grade control structures,
cessation of current land use practices, and planting with native hardwood vegetation.
7.1.3 Stream Enhancement (Level II)
Stream enhancement (level II) will occur on the majority of UT2, the lower reach of UT 5, and the
lower reach of UT8. Stream enhancement will entail the cessation of current land management
practices, excluding livestock, invasive species control (predominantly Chinese privet), and
planting riparian buffers with native forest vegetation. Riparian buffers will extend a minimum of
50 feet from the top of stream banks to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation
of the stream.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 28
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
7.2 Individual Reach Descriptions
Mitigation strategies proposed for each UT are presented below (Figures 6A to 6D).
7.2.1 UT 1
UT 1 enters the Site through a culvert and extends for 1155 linear feet in its current location. The
upper half of the reach is characterized by a disturbed forest buffer, which is accessible by livestock
resulting in poor understory growth and little herbaceous vegetation. The UT crosses a gas line
midway through the Site and enters pasture land vegetated largely by herbaceous grasses and
natural recruits. The entire reach is actively grazed by livestock.

In its current state, UT 1 is classified as a Cg-type channel with an entrenchment ratio ranging
from 1.6 to 4.3 (averaging 2.5). Although entrenchment ratios exhibit some connection to the
floodplain, the majority of the channel is incised, as evidenced by bank-height-ratios ranging from
1.4 to 2.5. Incision varies across the reach, with sections of deep incision in the far upper reaches
(below the culvert and halfway through the woods) and pastureland in the mid-, to lower reaches.
Reaches in the lower half of the woods are frequently characterized by debris jams, shallow and
wide channels from extensive hoof shear to channel banks, and sediment choked channels resulting
in lower incision values.

UT 1 is proposed for two mitigation treatments; 1) stream enhancement (level I) and 2) stream
restoration.

Stream enhancement (level I) is proposed in the upper wooded reaches of UT1, where channel
pattern appears to exhibit suitable sinuosity and pool-to-pool spacing; however, the channel is
relatively incised, impacted by livestock, and is characterized by low radius of curvature values in
several bends. Mitigation in these areas will focus on elevating the stream bed, providing the
proper channel dimension, and reducing shear on tight meander bends. Structures will be
strategically placed to reduce pressure on channel banks and focus scour into the center of the
channel. This reach will ultimately reconnect the channel to the floodplain and adjacent wetlands,
and bring the channel to a suitable elevation to initiate Priority 1 stream restoration in the
downstream reach.

Stream restoration is proposed to initiate in the lower wooded reaches where the channel has been
heavily impacted by livestock and debris jams, resulting a series of nearly braided channels,
followed by an incised/scoured reach. The lower wooded reach appears to be significantly less
sinuous than the upper wooded reaches and relict channel sections appear to be evident adjacent
to the current channel. The reach is proposed for Priority 1 restoration on new location,
reconnecting the channel to degraded/drained wetlands or hydric soils. Once the channel exits the
lower wooded areas the channel will be excavated in a relatively wide, flat floodplain. The channel
discharges through a culvert beneath the neighboring driveway.
7.2.2 UT 2
UT 2 initiates within the Site boundaries as a headwater stream system. A small agriculture pond,
located upstream and outside of the project boundaries, discharges water which coalesces and
forms the upstream channel initiation point. The channel drains for 363 linear feet before

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 29
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
converging with UT 1. The channel initiates in disturbed woods that are actively utilized by
livestock for browse and shade. As UT 2 descends the valley, pasture abuts the right bank of the
channel for the duration of its path.

Currently, UT 2 is classified as a Gf-type channel with entrenchment ratios ranging from 1.4 to
2.0 and bank-height-ratios ranging from 3.0 to 3.7. The channel does not appear to be actively
eroding, possibly due to storm water attenuation from the upstream pond. The lack of bank erosion
and intermittent flow regime for the channel resulted in the IRT designating the reach for stream
enhancement (level II).

A small section of UT 2, at the downstream extent, is proposed for stream restoration. This reach
extends from the terminus of the existing channel to the proposed channel tie-in with UT 1. This
reach of channel will require the excavation of channel on new location. The reach proposed for
restoration extends slightly upstream within the UT 2 channel, which is necessary to maintain
proper slope of the channel (the bed of UT 2 at the extreme lower reach is below the design channel
bed of UT 1 at its confluence).
7.2.3 UT 3
UT 3 is contained within an agriculture field ditch that drains roadside ditches and headwater
wetlands in the upper slopes of livestock pasture. Both margins of UT 3 are characterized by
pasture land which are vegetated by herbaceous species and actively grazed. The stream is
designated as intermittent for the upper half and perennial for the lower half.

Currently, UT 3 is classified as a Cg-type channel with entrenchment ratios ranging from 1.4 to
3.8. The channel is deeply incised, as evidenced by bank-height-ratios of 1.7 to 2.4. The incised
channel appears to be draining hydric soils along its margins. Excavation of UT 3 into an
agriculture ditch is evidenced by a complete lack of sinuosity, riffle-pool structure, or other aquatic
habitat zones.

UT 3 is proposed for stream restoration through a combination of raising the channel bed, lowering
the adjacent floodplain, installation of log cross vane structures, planting vegetation, and removing
livestock. A narrow, relatively steep valley slope necessitate a relatively low sinuosity stream
channel which will ultimately be constructed as an E/C-type channel, but will function similar to
a Cb-type channel.
7.2.4 UT 4
UT 4 enters the Site below a cattle crossing located at the juncture of a wooded stream and a
heavily eroded ditch draining a chicken house complex. UT 4 drains through the Site for 485 feet
prior to discharging into UT 5. The stream is bound on each side by disturbed forest, which is
actively used by livestock for browse and shade. Pasture characterizes the outer margins of the
easement, with agriculture runoff entering the stream.

UT 4 is classified as an Eg-type channel with entrenchment ratios of 1.3 to 6.1. The channel has
drastically different depths due to high sediment loads from the eroding upstream ditch, which has
aggraded the channel. Once streamflow passes the sediment plugged reaches, channel scour
results from stormwater pulses, a lack of vegetation, and cattle hoof shear. The scoured channel

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 30
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
reaches have bank-height-ratios ranging from 1.3 to 4.0. The downstream end of UT 4 has a dirt
ford crossing combined with a small sediment, or agriculture watering pond that further exacerbate
sediment transport problems.

UT 4 is proposed for stream restoration through new channel excavation, installation of instream
structures, removal of sediment sources, and removal of the agriculture watering pond. In addition,
an upgraded piped crossing will be installed above the reach.

An important component of the stream restoration effort will be to control sediment originating
from an eroding ditch immediately above the Site. As proposed, a sediment pond will be installed
at the outlet of drainage discharging from the chicken house complex. In addition, the ditch
draining from the chicken house complex will be stabilized with coir matting and plantings. The
ditch will then drain to an additional marsh treatment area that will attenuate flows and allow for
some additional sediment treatment until the ditch stabilizes. These features will discharge above
the piped culvert prior to entering the Site.
7.2.5 UT 5
UT 5 originates within the Site boundaries in an agriculture pond and drains for 907 feet in its
current location. The upper reaches of UT5 (above the dirt road) is completely contained within
agriculture pasture. The middle reaches of UT 5 are split between agriculture pasture and fallow
fields that appears to have been a lagoon, or some other wet flat with spoil piled in the lower
sections before the tributary enters the woods. The lower reaches are characterized by disturbed
forest.

Overall, UT 5 is classified as an Eg-type stream channel with entrenchment ratios ranging from
1.4 to 7.3. However, the upper reaches are characterized by more of an aggrading channel (pond
attenuating stormwater pulses, pipes under roads fixing grade, and heavy livestock trampling of
the channel below the pond) and subsequent higher entrenchment ratios. As the channel crosses
under the road and progresses down valley, channel incision becomes more significant (bank-
height-ratios up to 2.7). UT 5 enters a wooded section for the lower reaches by passing through
extensive spoil piles (or possibly a relict dam) and has a significant hydraulic drop before
stabilizing within the woods.

UT 5 is proposed for stream restoration in its upper reaches and enhancement (level II) in its lower
reaches. Stream restoration is expected to entail the complete remove of the agriculture pond dam,
excavation of the new channel within and adjacent to the existing channel, upgrading a road
crossing that is paired with a piped cattle crossing of the stream, installation of instream structures
(log cross vanes), installation of a TerraCell drop structure, planting, and removal of livestock
from the easement.

Removal of the pond dam is expected to include 1) notching the dam to dewater sediments; 2)
removal of the dam to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating sediment that is
unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4) backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil
suitable for channel construction (if necessary); 5) excavation of the design channel, 6)
stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of structures.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 31
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
7.2.6 UT 6
UT 6 originates immediately downstream from a gas line crossing. The stream is intermittent for
a brief period and converts to a perennial stream shortly thereafter and flows for 683 feet in its
current location. The channel is bound by a combination of pasture and sparsely vegetated forest
and is almost entirely accessible by livestock. A power line crosses over the middle section of the
stream that provides power to a barn located outside the easement. In the lower sections of the
stream, a small pond has been excavated for watering livestock. The pond dam was breached some
years prior and a wetland complex has developed in the pond bottom.

Overall, UT 6 is classified as a Cg-type channel with entrenchment ratios ranging from 1.1 to 4.8.
The upper reaches of the channel are relatively steep, particularly in the intermittent sections, prior
to reaching a significant nick point where the channel slope flattens slightly. Channel flattening,
combined with some backwater effect from the pond dam and heavy livestock traffic make
classification of the channel atypical (width-depth ratios range between 15 and 48). The upper
reaches are characteristic of a G-type channel (width-depth ratio <12) and the lower reaches are
characteristic of an F-type channel (width-depth ratio <12). Both channels are characterized by
significant incision, with bank-height-ratios ranging from 3.7 to 7.5.

UT 6 is proposed for stream restoration which is expected to entail stabilization of hydraulic drops
in the channel, raising the channel bed, installation of structures (log cross vanes and log vanes),
removing the agriculture pond and dam, moving the powerline crossing over the stream, installing
TerraCell drop structures, planting with native hardwood forest, and fencing livestock from the
stream.

Moving the powerline is to be conducted in conjunction with the Randolph County Electric
Membership Corporation (a “Utility Work Agreement” is provided in Appendix J). The current
work plan includes moving the utility easement upstream of the conservation easement for UT 6
and UT 7, thereby eliminating the easement break and maintenance associated with the utility.
7.2.7 UT 7
UT 7 originates in an agriculture pond and descends a relatively steep valley through pastureland.
The entire reach of UT 7 is characterized by herbaceous grasses that are grazed by livestock. A
powerline crosses the upper section of the stream and a gas line crosses the lower section of the
stream. Attenuation of stormwater and the loss of channel forming flows has resulted in the loss
of stream channel characteristics below the pond.

UT 7 is classified as a Cg-type channel, with entrenchment ratios of 1.7 to 5.2. The narrow steep
valley exhibits characteristics of a B-type channel, which have been targeted during proposed
channel design. The entire channel reach is incised (with the exception of a short reach near the
gas line), with bank-height-ratios ranging from 1.8 to 4.1. Channel incision is likely to result from
removal of vegetation, disturbance to the channel during development of pasture, and active
livestock grazing. The channel has low sinuosity; however, this would be expected in a relatively
steep, narrow valley.

UT 7 is proposed for two mitigation treatments; 1) stream restoration and 2) stream enhancement
(level I).

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 32
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Stream restoration is proposed within the pond bed and under the pond dam. Similar to the upper
reaches of UT 5, removal of the pond dam is expected to include 1) notching the dam to dewater
sediments; 2) removal of the dam to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating
sediment that is unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4) backfilling areas of sediment removed
with soil suitable for channel construction (if necessary); 5) excavation of the design channel, 6)
stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of structures.

Stream enhancement (level I) is proposed below the pond dam and is expected to include
stabilization of hydraulic drops in the channel, a combination of raising the channel bed and
lowering the adjacent floodplain, installation of structures (log cross vanes and log vanes), moving
the powerline crossing over the stream, installing TerraCell drop structures, planting with native
hardwood forest, and fencing livestock from the stream.

The narrow, relatively steep valley necessitate a relatively low sinuosity stream channel which will
ultimately be constructed as an Eb-type channel, with shorter pool-to-pool spacing and more
frequent structures, particularly in the upper reaches of the stream.
7.2.8 UT 8
UT 8 enters the Site from an adjacent property and flows for 1221 linear feet in its current location.
The stream has been excavated as a ditch, apparently to move the channel to the property line and
off pasture land. The upper half of the tributary flows through disturbed forest, accessible to
livestock. The lower half of the tributary is fenced on the left bank, removing livestock from the
channel.

In its current state, restoration reaches of UT 8 are classified as Eg-type channels with
entrenchment ratios ranging from 1.1 to 4.9. Similar to other reaches on the Site, the channel has
sections of incision and aggradation, likely resulting from extensive hoof shear to the channel
banks and debris jams in the channel. The channel appears to be incised, as evidenced by bank-
height-ratios ranging from 1.4 to 3.7. The upper reaches of channel have been ditched, and
straightened and have relatively wide flat floodplains adjacent to the existing channel.

As originally proposed, UT 8 was to include preservation in the upper reaches. However,
discrepancies with the county maintained GIS property lines (confirmed by a licensed surveyor)
have removed that reach from the project. Currently, UT 8 is proposed for stream restoration in
the upper reach and stream enhancement (level II) in the lower reach.

Stream restoration is proposed to initiate in the upper wooded reaches where the channel has been
ditched and heavily impacted by livestock. This reach is proposed for Priority 1 restoration with
the channel to be relocated to the adjacent floodplain. The channel will ultimately discharges into
the existing channel that is fenced from livestock. The existing channel without livestock access
is situated approximately 3 feet below the design channel bed and will be connected through the
use of a TerraCell drop structure.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 33
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Stream enhancement (level II) is proposed for the lower half of the stream reach and is expected
to include planting with native hardwood forest, and fencing livestock on the left bank of the
easement.
7.3 Hydrological Modifications (Wetland Restoration)
Wetland restoration activities are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system, which
will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and compounds,
and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Portions of the Site underlain by hydric
soils have been impacted by channel incision, ground surface compaction, vegetative clearing, and
earth movement associated with agricultural practices. Wetland restoration options will focus on
the removal of fill materials, restoration of vegetative communities, the reestablishment of soil
structure and microtopographic variations, and redirecting normal surface hydrology back to Site
floodplains. These activities will result in the restoration of 0.35 acre of riparian wetland.

Reestablishment of Historic Groundwater Elevations
Hydric soils adjacent to the incised channels appear to have been drained due to lowering of the
groundwater table and a lateral drainage effect from existing stream reaches. Reestablishment of
channel inverts is expected to rehydrate soils adjacent to Site streams, resulting in the restoration
of jurisdictional hydrology to riparian wetlands.

Reestablishment of Soil Structure
Soil structure throughout the Site, particularly within wetland areas, will be reestablished to allow
for penetration of rain water to the groundwater table. This will be accomplished by removing
livestock from the Site, ripping compacted soils, and revegetating the Site.

Hydrophytic Vegetation
Site wetland areas targeted for restoration have endured significant disturbance from land use
activities such as land clearing, livestock grazing, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Wetland
areas will be revegetated with native vegetation typical of wetland communities in the region.
Emphasis will focus on developing a diverse plant assemblage. Section 7.5 (Natural Plant
Community Restoration) provides detailed information concerning community species
associations.
7.4 Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement will focus on the removal of livestock and restoration of vegetative
communities resulting in the enhancement of 0.61 acre of riparian wetland.
7.5 Soil Restoration
Soil grading will occur during stream restoration activities. Topsoils will be stockpiled during
construction activities and will be spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade has been
established. The replaced topsoil will serve as a viable growing medium for community restoration
to provide nutrients and aid in the survival of planted species.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 34
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
7.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and stream-side habitat allows for development and expansion of
characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types
contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting
opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. Reference Forest Ecosystem
(RFE) data, onsite observations, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to develop the primary
plant community associations that will be promoted during community restoration activities.
7.6.1 Planting Plan
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid
growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and
overbank flood events. Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within 15 feet of the channel
top of bank throughout the meander belt-width. Shrub elements will be planted along the
reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer bends. Piedmont Alluvial Forest is the target
community for Site floodplains and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest is the target community for
upland side-slopes.

Bare-root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forests will be
planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the
stream-side assemblage and Marsh Wetland Treatment Areas will be planted at a density of 2720
stems per acre on 4-foot centers.

Table 13 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation
association (Figures 9A and 9B, Appendix A). Planting will be performed between December 1
and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring
season.

In addition to planting seedlings, a seed mix will be spread within Marsh Treatment Wetland Areas
as follows.

1. Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus)
2. Switch grass (Panicum virgatum)
3. Big blue stem (Andropogon gerardii)
4. Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans)
5. Deer tongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum)

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 35
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 13. Planting Plan
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial
Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest*
Marsh Treatment
Wetland**
Stream-side
Assemblage** TOTAL
Area (acres) 3.0 5.2 0.05 3.8 12.05
Species
#
planted*
% of
total
#
planted*
% of
total
#
planted**
% of
total
#
planted**
% of
total # planted
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) -- -- -- -- 14 10 517 5 530
River birch (Betula nigra) 204 10 -- -- -- -- 204 10 721
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) -- -- 707 20 -- -- -- -- 707
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) -- -- -- -- 27 20 -- -- 27
Red bud (Cercis canadensis) -- -- 530 15 -- -- -- -- 530
Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) -- -- -- -- 20 15 -- -- 20
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) 204 10 -- -- 20 15 2067 20 2292
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) -- -- 354 10 -- -- -- -- 354
White ash (Fraxinus americana) -- -- 177 5 -- -- -- -- 177
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 408 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 2475
Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) -- -- -- -- 14 10 -- -- 14
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 204 10 -- -- -- -- -- -- 204
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 408 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 2475
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) -- -- 530 15 -- -- -- -- 530
Water oak (Quercus nigra) 306 15 707 20 -- -- 1034 10 2047
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 306 15 530 15 -- -- 1034 10 1870
Black willow (Salix nigra) -- -- -- -- -- -- 1034 10 1034
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) -- -- -- -- 27 20 -- -- 27
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) -- -- -- -- 14 10 -- -- 14
TOTAL 2040 100 3536 100 136 100 10336 100 16048
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 36
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
7.6.2 Nuisance Species Management
Invasive plant species will be observed and controlled mechanically and/or chemically, as part of
this project. No other nuisance species controls are not proposed at this time. Inspections for
beaver and other potential nuisance species will occur throughout the course of the monitoring
period. Appropriate actions may be taken to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation
development and/or water management on an as-needed basis. The presences of nuisance species
will be monitored over the course of the monitoring period. Appropriate actions will be taken to
ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water management on
an as-needed basis.
8.0 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc based on the schedule in Table 14. A
summary of monitoring is outlined in Table 15 (Figures 10A – 10D, Appendix A). Annual
monitoring reports will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than
December 31 of each monitoring year data is collected.

Table 14. Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams
Wetlands
Vegetation
Macroinvertebrates
Visual Assessment
Report Submittal

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 37
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 15. Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built (unless otherwise
required) All restored stream channels Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 Total of 34 cross-sections on restored
channels Graphic and tabular data.
Channel Stability
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream channels
Areas of concern to be depicted on a
plan view figure with a written
assessment and photograph of the area
included in the report.
Additional Cross-sections Yearly Only if instability is documented
during monitoring Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Hydrology Continuous monitoring surface water
gauges and/or trail camera
Continuous recording through
monitoring period Total of 10 surface water gauges Surface water data for each monitoring
period as depicted in Figures 10A-10D.
Bankfull Events
Continuous monitoring surface water
gauges and/or trail camera
Continuous recording through
monitoring period
Total of 10 surface water gauges:
One gauge on UT1, 2, 3, 6 and 8.
Two gauges on UT 5.
Three gauges on UT 7
Surface water data for each monitoring
period
Visual/Physical Evidence Continuous through
monitoring period All restored stream channels Visual evidence, photo documentation,
and/or rain data.
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
“Qual 4” method described in Standard
Operating Procedures for Collection
and Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, Version 5.0
(NCDWR 2016)
Pre-construction, Years 3, 5,
and 7 during the “index
period” referenced in Small
Streams Biocriteria
Development (NCDWQ 2009)
2 stations (one at the lower end of
UT1 and one at the lower end of
UT5); however, the exact locations
will be determined at the time pre-
construction benthics are collected
Results* will be presented on a site-by-
site basis and to include a list of taxa
collected, an enumeration of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Wetland
Restoration Groundwater gauges
As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7 throughout the year with
the growing season defined as
March 1-October 22
6 gauges spread throughout restored
wetlands
Soil temperature at the beginning of
each monitoring period to verify the
start of the growing season, groundwater
and rain data for each monitoring period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Vegetation
establishment and
vigor
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acre
(100 square meters) in size; CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)
As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 14 plots spread across the Site Species, height, planted vs. volunteer,
stems/acre
Annual random vegetation plots, 0.0247
acre (100 square meters) in size As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 4 plots randomly selected each year Species and height
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria; however, the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in-stream habitat.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 38
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
8.1 Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives
identified from on-site NC SAM data collection. From a mitigation perspective, several of the
goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct
measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success
criteria. The following summarizes Site success criteria.

Table 16. Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days. Surface water
monitoring gauges will be installed in the upper third of all intermittent channels, unless otherwise requested
by the IRT.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 2.2 for E- and C-type channels at any measured riffle cross-
section. Note: B-type channels may have an ER less than 1.4.
• BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate
bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 10 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions. Note: Soil temperature for growing season establishment
will be measured daily utilizing a continuous monitoring soil probe. Soil temperature will be measured from
mid-February through the end of April (at a minimum).
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum of
260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the site;
natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis.
8.2 Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented.
8.2.1 Stream Contingency
Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair and/or installation;
2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank stabilization. The method of
contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that are not in compliance with
success criteria. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize stream success, include 1) structure
failure, 2) headcut migration through the Site, and/or 3) bank erosion.

Structure Failure
In the event that structures are compromised the affected structure will be repaired, maintained, or
replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent stream
banks and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which remain intact, but

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 39
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
exhibit flow around, beneath, or through the header/footer will be repaired by excavating a trench
on the upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the pilings. Structures
which have been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse of a header/footer, will be removed
and replaced with a structure suitable for Site flows.

Headcut Migration Through the Site
In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through measurements [i.e.
bank-height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing
damage caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded through
the installation of in-stream grade control structures (rip-rap sill and/or log cross-vane weir) and/or
restoring stream geometry variables until channel stability is achieved. Channel repairs to stream
geometry may include channel backfill with coarse material and stabilizing the material with
erosion control matting, vegetative transplants, and/or willow stakes.

Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs within the Site, resulting in incision, lateral instability,
and/or elevated width-to-depth ratios locally or systemically, contingency measures to reduce bank
erosion and width-to-depth ratio will be implemented. Bank erosion contingency measures may
include the installation of log-vane weirs and/or other bank stabilization measures. If the resultant
bank erosion induces shoot cutoffs or channel abandonment, a channel may be excavated to reduce
shear stress to stable values.
8.2.2 Wetland Contingency
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology enhancement/restoration is not achieved. Floodplain surface modifications,
including construction of ephemeral pools, represent a likely mechanism to increase the floodplain
area in support of jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland
hydrology will be implemented and monitored until Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
8.2.3 Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved, supplemental planting may be performed with tree
species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until
achievement of vegetation success criteria.
8.3 Compatibility with Project Goals
The following table outlines the compatibility of Site performance criteria described above to Site
goals and objectives that will be utilized to evaluate if Site goals and objectives are achieved.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 40
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Table 17. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives
Goals Objectives Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
• Attenuate flood flow across the
Site.
• Minimize downstream flooding
to the maximum extent
possible.
• Connect streams to functioning
wetland systems.
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
restore overbank flows and restore jurisdictional wetlands
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Remove livestock
• Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase
soil surface roughness
• Protect Site with a perpetual conservation easement
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• Document four overbank events in separate monitoring
years
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded
• Increase stream stability within
the Site so that channels are
neither aggrading nor
degrading.
• Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and
longitudinal profile
• Remove livestock from the Site
• Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• ER of 2.2 or greater for C/E-type channels
• < 10% change in BHR and ER in any given year
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) WATER QUALITY
• Remove direct nutrient and
pollutant inputs from the Site
and reduce contributions to
downstream waters.
• Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
• Install marsh treatment areas
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Restore/enhance wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) HABITAT
• Improve instream and stream-
side habitat.
• Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
restore overbank flows and plant woody riparian buffer
• Protect Site with a perpetual conservation easement
• Restore/enhance wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Visual documentation of stable channels and in-stream
structures.
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 41
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the event the mitigation Site or a specific component of the mitigation Site fails to achieve the
necessary performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the
members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as
conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic
inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment
is established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the
non-reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds
from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A-
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 42
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
11.0 REFERENCES

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction
for Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O’Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart.
1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water
Quality from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream
Restoration. June 15, 2016. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. Available: https:// https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/basin-planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8,
2016]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2014. Final 2014 Category 5 Water
Quality Assessments-303(d) List. Available: https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2014/2014_303dlist.pdf [November 16,
2017]. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016a. River Basin Classification
Schedule (online). Available: https://deq.nc.gov/river-basin-classification-schedule
[November 16, 2017]. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 43
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016b. Draft 2016 Category 5
Assessments EPA Submittal -303(d) List. Available:
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2016/NC_2016_Category_5_20160606.
pdf [November 16, 2017]. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures
for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online).
Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWR
Macroinvertebrate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria
Development. Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005f48eaa7&groupId=38364

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2009 (online). Available :
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-
c72dfcb55012&groupId=60329

North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment
Method (NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland
Assessment Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado

Rosgen, D. 2009. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (online). Available:
http://www.u-s-c.org/html/documents/Erosionrates.pdf.

Rosgen, D. 2011. Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non-point source
Consequences of Sediment (BANCS). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and
Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Hagerstown , Maryland.

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) page 44
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified
Tennessee Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest
Hydrology and Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Region.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2013. Population estimates V.2013.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North
Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina – Recompiled. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 01-4207. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figures 3-3A. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5A. Cedarock Reference Drainage Area
Figure 5B. Cedarock Reference Existing Conditions
Figure 5C. Cedarock Reference Reach Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures 6 & 6A-D. Restoration Plan
Figure 7. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures 8A-B. Typical Structure Details
Figures 9A-9C. Planting Plan
Figures 10A-10D. Monitoring Plan
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
DEC 2017
1:20000
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
PROJECTLOCATION
1
³
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic
Society, i-cubed
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic
Society, i-cubed, U. S. Geological Survey -
National Geospatial Program. Data
Refreshed October, 2017.
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,- Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,- After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,- After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road,- After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,- After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethel South Fork Road,- Site can be accessed from both sides of Bethel South Fork Road.- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.853955, -79.363458 (NAD83/WGS84)
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)
Snow Camp
¬«87 LindleyMillRoadBet
hel
Sout
hForkRoadClarkRoadE G reensboroChap elHi l l R o a d
SnowCampRoad
Copyright:© 2014 DeLorme
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
DEC 2017
1:375000
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
HYDROLOGICUNIT MAP
2
³
Location of Heron Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site within
USGS Hydrologic Unit andTargeted Local Watershed03030002050050
0 10 20 305Miles
Legend
Easement
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries
Targeted Local Watersheds
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
FIGUREDrawn by:Date:Scale:Project No.:KRJ/CLFAPR 20181:10,00017-008Title:Project:Prepared for:Alamance County, NCTOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGEAREA3HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITECopyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubedNCCGIALegendEasement - 17.5 acresDrainage Area UT 1 - 0.15 sq mi (96.4 ac)Drainage Area UT 2 - 0.01 sq mi (7.1 ac)Drainage Area UT 3 - 0.02 sq mi (11.7 ac)Drainage Area UT 4 - 0.03 sq mi (17.2 ac)Drainage Area UT 5 - 0.06 sq mi (38.1 ac)Drainage Area UT 6 - 0.02 sq mi (14.1 ac)Drainage Area UT 7 - 0.03 sq mi (20.9 ac)Drainage Area UT 8 - 0.05 sq mi (30.8 ac)
![
![
![
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
#
ObC
Lc
Lc
ObB
HdC2
ObB
GaB2
AaB
HdC
HdC2
GcE
HeC3
AaB
HdB2
ObB
ObC
HdC2
GbC3
Wd
GaB2
GaB2
HdD2
GcE
Mc
HdC2
ObC
HdC2
EbC3
GaD
GaC2
ObC
OaB
HdB2
HdC
HdC2
GaC
GaD
ObB2
HdB2
GcE
GaB2
GcE
EaB2
HdC
HdD2
EaB2
GaC2
GaB2
GaD2
HdB
GaB2
GaD
EbC3
Cg
HbB
GbD3
GaC2
GcD
GaE
GaC2
GaC2
OaB2
GaC
GaC2
GaB2 GaC2
HdB2
ObB2
GaBGaC2
We
We
GaC2
W HdB
GaB2 GbC3
GaB2
ObC2
ObB
GbC3 GaC2
ObB GaC2
GaC
HdB
HdC
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ/CLF
APR 2018
1:5000
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
EXISTINGCONDITIONS
4
³
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement - 17.5 acres
Perennial Stream = 3,947 ft
Intermittent Stream = 1,338 ft
Jurisdictional Wetlands = 0.61 ac
Drained Hydric Soil = 0.35 ac
!.SAM Forms
![WAM Forms
#Soil Profile
Power Line
Gas Pipeline
NRCS Soil Boundary
2 ft LIDAR Contour
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
Map Unit HydricSymbolMap Unit Name Status TaxonomyAaBAlamance Silt Loam NA Typic HapludultsGaC2Georgeville Silt Loam NA Typic KanhapludultsGcEGoldston Slaty Silt Loam NA Typic DystrudeptsHdC & HdC2 Herndon Silt Loam NA Typic KanhapludultsLc Local Alluvial Land, Poorly Drained Hydric NAMc Mixed Alluvial Land, Poorly Drained Hydric NAObBOrange Silt Loam NA Albaquic HapludalfsWdWorsham Sandy Loam Hydric Typic Endoaquults
Existing condition cross-section locations are depicted on Figure B1 (Appendix B).UT1UT2U T 3
UT4
UT5UT1
UT5
UT6
UT7
UT8
!(
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Axiom Environmental218 Snow AvenueRaleigh, NC 27603(919) 215-1693
CEDAROCK REFERENCE DRAINAGE AREA
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
Date:
Project:
FIGURE
5AWGL
Mar 2014
17-009
³0 640 1,280 1,920320Feet
!(
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC
911 Board
0 640 1,280 1,920320Feet³1:8600
1:8600
Legend - Drainage Area Topography
!(Cedarock Reference Site
Cedarock Reference Drainage Area = 0.21 sq mi
Legend - Land Use
!(Cedarock Reference Site
Cedarock Reference Drainage Area = 0.21 sq mi
6
0
0
560
5
4
0 580520620
560
540560540NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC
911 Board
Axiom Environmental218 Snow AvenueRaleigh, NC 27603(919) 215-1693
EXISTING CONDITIONS CEDAROCK
REFERENCE REACH
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
Date:
Project:
FIGURE
5BWGL
Mar 2014
17-009
³0 250 500 750125Feet
Legend
Cedarock Reference Site
Contour at 20 feet
Contour at 4 feet
Contour at 100 feet
Contour at 500 feet
Streams
929496981001021041060 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4502722732742752760 1020304027427527627727801020302742752762772782790 10203027627727827928001020302772782792802812822830 102030Heron
UT 3
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
UT 1
End Restoration
Sta 13+06
6A
r
UT 3
End Restoration
Sta 02+79
r UT 2
End Restoration
Sta 03+89
UT 2
/ End Enhance II
Start Restoration
Sta 03+43
`UT 2
Start Enhance II
Sta 00+00
UT 1
UT 1 End Enhance I
Start Enhance I Start Retoration
Sta 00+00 Sta 04+70
Elev
UT 6
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
UT 5
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
6
UT 4
Start Restoration\
Sta 00+00
6C
UT 4
End Restoration
Sta 04+50
" + UT 5
End Restoration
Start Enhance II
Sta 09+52
� R
JC
LEGEND
Easement = 17.5 ac
Stream Restoration = 4024 ft
Stream Enhancement 1 = 1182 ft
Stream Enhancement II = 1131 ft
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
Scale:
As Shown
Date:
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008
FIGURE NO
C:
Title:
RESTORATION
PLAN
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
NOTES/REVISIONS
I►1
UT 7
End Enhance I
Sta 09+96
UT 6
End Restoration
Sta 07+81
UT 5
End Enhance II
Sta 14+90
UT 8
End Enhance II
Sta 08+57
/ UT 8
/ End Restoration
Start Enhance II
Sta 06+07
UT 8
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
0 300 600
IM IM IIIIIIIIIIN
SCALE IN FEET
RESTORATION
SYSTEM
LLC Axiom Environmental,
UT 7
End Restoration
Start Enhance I
F
+
Sta 02+32
UT 7
Start Restoration\
Sta 00+00
UT 6
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
UT 5
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
6
UT 4
Start Restoration\
Sta 00+00
6C
UT 4
End Restoration
Sta 04+50
" + UT 5
End Restoration
Start Enhance II
Sta 09+52
� R
JC
LEGEND
Easement = 17.5 ac
Stream Restoration = 4024 ft
Stream Enhancement 1 = 1182 ft
Stream Enhancement II = 1131 ft
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
Scale:
As Shown
Date:
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008
FIGURE NO
C:
Title:
RESTORATION
PLAN
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
NOTES/REVISIONS
I►1
UT 7
End Enhance I
Sta 09+96
UT 6
End Restoration
Sta 07+81
UT 5
End Enhance II
Sta 14+90
UT 8
End Enhance II
Sta 08+57
/ UT 8
/ End Restoration
Start Enhance II
Sta 06+07
UT 8
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
0 300 600
IM IM IIIIIIIIIIN
SCALE IN FEET
RESTORATION
SYSTEM
LLC Axiom Environmental,

6A
U T 6 r
Start Restoration.
Sta 00+00
Elev 518.5
6D
6C
LEGEND
Easement = 17.5 ac
Design Stream Channel
Cross Vane
Vane Arm
® Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
mm� Piped Crossing
Stream Restoration = 4024 ft
Stream Enhancement I = 1182 ft
Stream Enhancement II = 1131 ft
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
Or
r
Remove Dam
UT 7
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
Elev 526.36
Top Terra(
Sta 07+01
Elev 503.1
k
Remove power line
from easement.
B
42 feet of channel is
outside of easement and
removed from credit.
UT 7
End Restoration
Start Enhance I
Sta 02+32
Elev 518.06
Remove Dam
52 feet of channel is 'FN.
outside of easement and
removed from credit. 1
'r
UT 7 �•
End Enhance I ti
Sta 09+96
Elev 495.38
(o Top Terracell
Q Sta 09+15
Q9
Elev 502.15
r
4 "
;i A.
` F i tnl)
F <E Title:
tyt�
RESTORATION
�.._ PLAN
A. 1:
t ,_ .
End Restoration
Sta 07+81 0 100 200
Elev 497.58
SCALE IN FEET
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
Scale: FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
Date: ^ ^
Nov 2017 /vim
Project No.:
17-008

- � -i
6A
6C
i 6B (■
i
co
VQ
UT 8
End Enhance II
Sta 08+57
UT 8
End Restoration
Start Enhance II
Sta 06+07
Elev 511.43
TOP TerraCell
Sta 05+66
Elev 514.40
4 -
7 f
•' 4,
LEGEND
Easement = 17.5 ac
Design Stream Channel
Cross Vane
Vane Arm
® Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
��... Piped Crossing
Stream Restoration = 4024 ft
Stream Enhancement 1 = 1182 ft
Stream Enhancement 11 = 1131 ft
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
ti
Title:
RESTORATION
PLAN
U T 8 r�
StartRestor76 n
00+00
.n `r Elev .06 ti
0• 1
Scale:
AS SHOWN
FIGURE NO.
^ D
/V.�
Date:
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008

POOL POOL 15' MIN. W bld
VALLEY
SIDE SLOPE LIVE WILLOW
RUN GLIDE RIFFLE RUN GLIDE RIFFLE STAKES
COIR FIBER
_ EROSION PROPOSED
17 WATER SURFACE CONTROL MATTING FLOODPLAIN
�LEVATISN- - - - TI- I m s Axiom Environmental, Inc.
III III I- 1 Class A and
JUP
_Cobble Slone I
2:1❑ ❑
BANK S
EXTEND Yy o
BOTTOM OF BED MACHANNEL CHANNETO 1l3 D Vy ��
POOL -TO -POOL SPACING (ft.)
(VARIES -SEE NOTE 1)
E -D -
TYPICAL CHANNEL PROFILE TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION
VMS wwo. 4,
NOTES:
1. POOL -TO -POOL SPACING IS MEASURED FROM
CENTER OF POOL BEND TO CENTER OF POOL BEND.
PROPOSED
FLOODPLAIN
NOTES/REVISIONS
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW NOTES:
1 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT THE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT BY LOCATING
THE RADII AND SCRIBING THE CENTER LINE FOR EACH POOL BEND. THE
CONNECTING TANGENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE THE LAYOUT OF THE CHANNEL.
2. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO SAVE TREES
OR AVOID OBSTACLES. THE STAKE -OUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL.
POOL LENGTH
I _W rhal _ I
REACH
Wbkf ft.
Wbot ft. Drill ft. Dthal ft.
MAX. 1:1 SLOPE
Wool ft.
Wthal ft.
HEAD OF
RIFFLE
8.4
5.2 0.7 0.1
1.1
` _-'
X
TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
UT 3
TAILOF
2.8 0.3 0.1
-"
/* HR1
\
4.9
1.0
RIFFLE
�RIFFLE
TAIL OF i R2 /
0.6
5.2
Project:
DESIGN G��OF ,�.\• 4,
CHANNEL �
5.3
3.7 0.3 0.1
0.7
PJa
4
1.0
UT 8
5.9
4.3 0.3 0.1
0.8
6.5
1.5
0
v
HR2
CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
Heron
FLOW
1. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE
USED TO BACKFILL EXISTING CHANNEL.
Mitigation c V i to
R1
2. BANK PROTECTION SHALL CONSIST OF NATURAL COIR FIBER MATTING.
POOLLENGTH
TYPICAL CHANNEL PLAN VIEW
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY BED MATERIAL FOR THE ENTIRE BED
Alamance County
LENGTH OF EACH RIFFLE SECTION. THE BED MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF
A MIX OF CLASS A AND SMALLER STONE.
I
North
N o r't I h I Carolina
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW NOTES:
1 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT THE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT BY LOCATING
THE RADII AND SCRIBING THE CENTER LINE FOR EACH POOL BEND. THE
CONNECTING TANGENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE THE LAYOUT OF THE CHANNEL.
2. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO SAVE TREES
OR AVOID OBSTACLES. THE STAKE -OUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL.
Title:
PROPOSED DIMENSION,
PATTERN, AND PROFILE
Scale: NA FIGURE NO.
Date:
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH
Wbkf ft.
Wbot ft. Drill ft. Dthal ft.
Dpool (ft.)
Wool ft.
Wthal ft.
UT 1
8.4
5.2 0.7 0.1
1.1
9.3
2.5
UT 3
4.4
2.8 0.3 0.1
0.6
4.9
1.0
UT 4, 5, and 6
4.8
3.2 0.4 0.1
0.6
5.2
1.5
UT 7
5.3
3.7 0.3 0.1
0.7
5.8
1.0
UT 8
5.9
4.3 0.3 0.1
0.8
6.5
1.5
Title:
PROPOSED DIMENSION,
PATTERN, AND PROFILE
Scale: NA FIGURE NO.
Date:
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008

#57 STONE
CLASS W F
NATIVE CH
MATERIAL
LOG CROSS VANE
SCALE:NTS
PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
L 1. HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 18"
DIAMETER AND SHALL BE A HARDWOOD SPECIES.
(FOOTER LOG MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH PINE)
2. A DOUBLE FOOTER LOG MAY BE REQUIRED IN SAND BED
STREAMS.
3. ALL STONES ARE TO BE STRUCTURE STONES.
4. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE
OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT WASHOUT OF SEDIMENT
THROUGH LOG GAPS. FILTER FABRIC SHALL EXTEND
FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER TO THE FINISHED GRADE
ELEVATION AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE
STRUCTURE.
5. PERPENDICULAR ROOTWAD LOGS ARE REQUIRED IF THE LOG
VANE ARM DOES NOT HAVE A ROOTBALL TO TIE INTO THE BANK.
"' A -A iii �•iq HEADER LOG
7� A COIR LOG —
CLASS W RIP RAP I
NATIVE CHANNEL
MATERIAL
EXISTING TOP OF BANK CH STONE / NATIVE
GROUND rHEADER LOG (BANKFULL) "_GROUND CHANNEL MATERIAL
j COIR LOG
BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED- FILTER J"
WITH #57 STONE AND T 'iPOOL I� FABRIC J
CLASS RIP RAP /NATIVE <�9�F� FOOTER LOG
CHANNEL MATERIAL
STREAMBED FILTER FABRIC SECTION A -A
ELEVATION FOOTERLOG
SECTION B -B
REACH
ARM LENGTH (FT.)
CHANNEL DEPTH (FT.)
UT 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8
7
0.4-0.5
UT 1
10
0.8
NOTE:
HEADER AND FOOTER STONES ARE LARGE, ANGULAR BOULDERS
MEASURING A MINIMUM OF 24" ALONG THE SHORTEST DIMENSION.
Tf
r
CHANNEL CHANNEL
BANK I I BANK
FILTER I,,—
I� I
X -4
PLAN VIEW
SCOUR
TOP OF BANK
(BANKFULL)
ELEVATION
Tz otP
\
A
\
CHANNEL `
BANK
I
I
LARGE
STONE
/
/
SCOUR /
HOLE /
/ 1 (I
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
TOP OF BANK
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: N.T.S.
\
\
\\ CHANNEL
BANK
t
t
t
t
I
I
(
A
LOG VANE
FILTER
FABRIC
LARGE
STONE
5 EXIST. 5
\ CHANNEL / CROSS-SECTION A -A
\ HEADER )
STONE / SCALE: N.T.S.
wsh „ a, ,
%s'r' v7fk' ; ' i„�, .I ( _„,; ;; ' i.'•F;; TOP OF BANK
FOOTER BANKFULL _ _ _ _ _ _ _
— — — — — 10-1s° — —
ELEVATION A -A STONE
FLOWS
N
GPM I PMr.TH BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
BACK FILL
TO GRADE
EXIST.
GROUND
ROCK FILL
(#57 STONE)
WHERE NEEDED
TYPICAL CROSS -VANE
PROFILE B -B
FILTER FABRIC
LARGE
STONE
t %
LOG VANE
FILTER
FABRIC
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
PROFILE B -B ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
SCALE: N.T.S. PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
TYPICAL LOG VANE
OF
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
Title:
TYPICAL
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
Scale: FIGURE NO.
NO SCALE
Date: A
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008
• F
I� I
X -4
PLAN VIEW
SCOUR
TOP OF BANK
(BANKFULL)
ELEVATION
Tz otP
\
A
\
CHANNEL `
BANK
I
I
LARGE
STONE
/
/
SCOUR /
HOLE /
/ 1 (I
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
TOP OF BANK
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: N.T.S.
\
\
\\ CHANNEL
BANK
t
t
t
t
I
I
(
A
LOG VANE
FILTER
FABRIC
LARGE
STONE
5 EXIST. 5
\ CHANNEL / CROSS-SECTION A -A
\ HEADER )
STONE / SCALE: N.T.S.
wsh „ a, ,
%s'r' v7fk' ; ' i„�, .I ( _„,; ;; ' i.'•F;; TOP OF BANK
FOOTER BANKFULL _ _ _ _ _ _ _
— — — — — 10-1s° — —
ELEVATION A -A STONE
FLOWS
N
GPM I PMr.TH BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
BACK FILL
TO GRADE
EXIST.
GROUND
ROCK FILL
(#57 STONE)
WHERE NEEDED
TYPICAL CROSS -VANE
PROFILE B -B
FILTER FABRIC
LARGE
STONE
t %
LOG VANE
FILTER
FABRIC
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
PROFILE B -B ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
SCALE: N.T.S. PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
TYPICAL LOG VANE
OF
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
Title:
TYPICAL
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
Scale: FIGURE NO.
NO SCALE
Date: A
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008

WATER SURFACE
ELEVATION
(SEE NOTES)
TERRACELL STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL 18 -INCH TERRACELL SYNTHETIC GEOGRID AS PER THE MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS.
2. AT BOTTOM RIFFLE DOWNSTREAM FROM TERRACELL STRUCTURE THE POOL WILL BE ARMORED WITH
EROSION CONTROL FABRIC AND CLASS 1 RIP RAP OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIAL.
Wetland
PROFILE
SECTION A -A
RIP RAP
I:," Slo Pc �'l F. .a
Stormwater
Wetland
Grade Base of
Wetland at 15 to 1
DEEP POOL
18 IN TERRACELL
SYNTHETIC GEOGRID
------- fll� CLOTH
I 1_ Wbot 3.5 to 6.0 ft
CROSS-SECTION
TERRACELL STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL 18 -INCH TERRACELL SYNTHETIC GEOGRID AS PER THE MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS.
2. ONCE THE SYNTHETIC GEOGRID HAS BEEN INSTALLED, GEOCELLS WILL BE BACKFILLED WITH GRAVEL
AND TOPSOIL AND PLANTED WITH EROSION CONTROL GRASSES AND WILLOW STAKES (SAL/XAOGRA).
MARSH TREATMENT AREA
DITCH OR
PIPE INLET
RIP RAP
BASIN
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS I
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
Title:
TYPICAL
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
Scale: FIGURE NO.
NO SCALE
Date: B
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008

Vegetation AssociationTOTALArea (acres)12.05Species # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted** % of total # plantedTag alder (Alnus serrulata) ---- ----14105175530River birch (Betula nigra)204 10 -- -- -- -- 517 5 721Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)-- -- 707 20 -- ---- -- 707Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)---- ----2720 -- --27Red bud (Cercis canadensis)-- -- 530 15 -- ---- -- 530Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) ---- ----2015 -- --20Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)204 10 -- -- 20 15 2067 20 2292Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)-- -- 354 10 -- ---- -- 354White ash (Fraxinus americana)-- -- 177 5 -- ------ 177Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)408 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 2475Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) ---- ----1410 -- --14Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 204 10 -- -- -- ---- -- 204Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)408 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 2475Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)-- -- 530 15 -- ---- -- 530Water oak (Quercus nigra)306 15 707 20 -- -- 1034 10 2047Willow oak (Quercus phellos)306 15 530 15 -- -- 1034 10 1870Black willow (Salix nigra)-- -- -- -- -- -- 1034 10 1034Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) ---- ----2720 -- --27Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) ---- ----1410 -- --14TOTAL 2040 100 3536 100 136 100 10336 100 16048* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest*Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest*Marsh Treatment Wetland**Stream-side Assemblage**3 5.2 0.05 3.8
Vegetation AssociationTOTALArea (acres)12.05Species# planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted** % of total # plantedTag alder (Alnus serrulata) ---- ----14105175530River birch (Betula nigra)204 10 -- -- -- -- 517 5 721Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)-- -- 707 20 -- ---- -- 707Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)---- ----2720 -- --27Red bud (Cercis canadensis)-- -- 530 15 -- ---- -- 530Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) ---- ----2015 -- --20Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)204 10 -- -- 20 15 2067 20 2292Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)-- -- 354 10 -- ---- -- 354White ash (Fraxinus americana)-- -- 177 5 -- ------ 177Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)408 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 2475Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) ---- ----1410 -- --14Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 204 10 -- -- -- ---- -- 204Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)408 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 2475Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)-- -- 530 15 -- ---- -- 530Water oak (Quercus nigra)306 15 707 20 -- -- 1034 10 2047Willow oak (Quercus phellos)306 15 530 15 -- -- 1034 10 1870Black willow (Salix nigra)-- -- -- -- -- -- 1034 10 1034Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) ---- ----2720 -- --27Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) ---- ----1410 -- --14TOTAL 2040 100 3536 100 136 100 10336 100 16048* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest*Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest*Marsh Treatment Wetland**Stream-side Assemblage**3 5.2 0.05 3.8
Vegetation AssociationTOTALArea (acres)12.05Species# planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted** % of total # plantedTag alder (Alnus serrulata) ---- ----14105175530River birch (Betula nigra)204 10 -- -- -- -- 517 5 721Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)-- -- 707 20 -- ---- -- 707Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)---- ----2720 -- --27Red bud (Cercis canadensis)-- -- 530 15 -- ---- -- 530Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) ---- ----2015 -- --20Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)204 10 -- -- 20 15 2067 20 2292Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)-- -- 354 10 -- ---- -- 354White ash (Fraxinus americana)-- -- 177 5 -- ------ 177Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)408 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 2475Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) ---- ----1410 -- --14Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 204 10 -- -- -- ---- -- 204Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)408 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 2475Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)-- -- 530 15 -- ---- -- 530Water oak (Quercus nigra)306 15 707 20 -- -- 1034 10 2047Willow oak (Quercus phellos)306 15 530 15 -- -- 1034 10 1870Black willow (Salix nigra)-- -- -- -- -- -- 1034 10 1034Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) ---- ----2720 -- --27Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) ---- ----1410 -- --14TOTAL 2040 100 3536 100 136 100 10336 100 16048* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest*Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest*Marsh Treatment Wetland**Stream-side Assemblage**3 5.2 0.05 3.8
.:asr•.4
End Restoration
10C UT 3 Sta 02+79
Start Restoration Elev 534.31
Sta 00+00
10B Elev 539.26 z T
10D
L
UT 1
E7nd Enhance I
Start Retoration
Sta 04+70
Elev 540.76
7
IiL A
AUT 1
a End Restoration
Sta 13+06
Elev 532.72
f,A 64 ft of channel is outside
'f of easement and removed
r f ^ ^ from credit.
r
UT 2
End Restoration
Sta 03+89
Elev 538.85 .
"~UT2
LEGEND
End Enhance II
StartRestoration
Sta 03+43
Elev 539.18
Easement = 17.5 ac
1
UT 2
Design Stream Channel
Start Enhance II
a 00+00
Cross Vane
Vane Arm
®
Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
Piped Crossing
Stream Restoration = 4024 ft
Stream Enhance 1 = 1182 ft
Stream Enhance II = 1131 ft
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
❑
Approximate Vegetation Plot Location
Monumented Cross Section
O
Groundwater Gauge
O
Surfacewater Gauge
UT 1'
Start Enhance I
Sta 00+00
EIev 544.31
r.S
4I'l..
J -1
L
UT 1
E7nd Enhance I
Start Retoration
Sta 04+70
Elev 540.76
7
IiL A
AUT 1
a End Restoration
Sta 13+06
Elev 532.72
f,A 64 ft of channel is outside
'f of easement and removed
r f ^ ^ from credit.
r
UT 2
End Restoration
Sta 03+89
Elev 538.85 .
"~UT2
End Enhance II
StartRestoration
Sta 03+43
Elev 539.18
1
UT 2
Start Enhance II
a 00+00
AW
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
Title:
MONITORING
PLAN
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
scale: FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
Date: w OA
Nov 2017 ' I
Project No.:
17-008

Remove
Dam
1:
I
UT 4
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
Elev 522.80
UT 5
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
Elev 538.00
JL
at
'JT4
low' End Restoration
Sta 04+50
Elev 514.53
A•
y1 . Pk
P
53 ft of channel is outside
of easement and removed
from credit.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
, f
UT 5
1,
LEGEND
1
Easement = 17.5 ac
Design Stream Channel
°
Cross Vane
Vane Arm
UT 4
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
Elev 522.80
UT 5
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
Elev 538.00
JL
at
'JT4
low' End Restoration
Sta 04+50
Elev 514.53
A•
y1 . Pk
P
53 ft of channel is outside
of easement and removed
from credit.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
, f
UT 5
LEGEND
1
Easement = 17.5 ac
Design Stream Channel
°
Cross Vane
Vane Arm
® Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
Piped Crossing
t
Stream Restoration = 4024 ft
Stream Enhance 1 = 1182 ft
Stream Enhance II = 1131 ft
--w Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
UT 5
❑ Approximate Vegetation Plot Location
End Enhance II
- Monumented Cross Section
Sta 14+90
i
O Groundwater Gauge
O Surfacewater Gauge
.I -.MEmdo
UT 4
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
Elev 522.80
UT 5
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
Elev 538.00
JL
at
'JT4
low' End Restoration
Sta 04+50
Elev 514.53
A•
y1 . Pk
P
53 ft of channel is outside
of easement and removed
from credit.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
, f
UT 5
Top of TerraCell
1
Sta 09+12
Elev 514.53
°
UT 5
/ End Restoration
Start Enhance II
t
Sta 09+52
Elev 510.87
"1
UT 5
End Enhance II
1
Sta 14+90
i
�,, ❑ Stabilize ditch
with cloth, vegetation,,
and/or stone. \ i'
tell
49
0 i'' ;. 100 _ 200 r
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
Title:
MONITORING
PLAN
Scale:
AS SHOWN FIGURE NO.
Date:
Nov 2017 10B
Project No.:
17-008

10A
U T 6 r
Start Restoration.
Sta 00+00
Elev 518.5
LEGEND
10C A
1 I h
10D
Easement = 17.5 ac
Design Stream Channel
Cross Vane
Vane Arm
® Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
Piped Crossing
Stream Restoration = 4024 ft
Stream Enhance I = 1182 ft
Stream Enhance II = 1131 ft
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
❑ Approximate Vegetation Plot Location
- Monumented Cross Section
O Groundwater Gauge
• Surfacewater Gauge
0
Remove Dam
UT 7
Start Restoration
Sta 00+00
Elev 526.36
42 feet of channel is
outside of easement and
removed from credit.
UT 7
End Restoration
Start Enhance I
C11- n,) o')
52 feet of channel is
outside of easement and
removed from credit.
UT 7'f,�
End Enhance Ii' ,
Sta 09+96
Elev 495.38
r.
,
;II
Remove power line
from easement.
f 44/
co
Remove Dam t 4
c �.. •� ik�, by ', , '
o �
-� Top Terrace[ `
Sta 07+01
Elev 503.1 z
End Restoration
Sta 07+81 0 100 200
Elev 497.58
..�l �. SCALE IN FEET
AW In
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
Title:
MONITORING
PLAN
Scale: FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
Date: / 0 ^
Nov 2017 'I (v"
Project No.:
17-008

- -i
10A
10B ,
r
A
UT 8
End Enhance II
Sta 08+57
UT 8
End Restoration
Start Enhance II
Sta 06+07
Elev 511.43
TOP TerraCell
Sta 05+66
Elev 514.40
4
7; f f
.t E
LEGEND
Easement = 17.5 ac
Design Stream Channel
Cross Vane
Vane Arm
® Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
Piped Crossing
Stream Restoration = 4024 ft
Stream Enhance 1 = 1182 ft
Stream Enhance II = 1131 ft
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
❑ Approximate Vegetation Plot Location
- Monumented Cross Section
O Groundwater Gauge
O Surfacewater Gauge
UT 8 �+r'
\' Start Restoration '
.n `r Elev .06.
IL
o.
AAWWF
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
Title:
MONITORING
{� PLAN
M '-"4
Scale: FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
Date: 10D
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix B
Existing Stream Data
Table B1. Heron Morphological Stream Characteristics
Figure B1. Cross-section Locations
Existing Stream Cross-section Data
Sediment Data
NC SAM Forms
NC WAM Forms
NCDWQ Stream Forms
Table B1. Heron Site Morphological Stream Characteristics
Stream Type
Drainage Area (mi2)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf)8.0 14.7
Existing Cross-Sectional Area at TOB (Aexisting)8.0 14.7
Mean: 8.1 Mean: 11.0 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 8.0 - 12.1 Range: 10.7 - 11.3 Range: 4.7 to 11.1 Range: 7.8 to 9.0 Range: 3.0 to 4.8 Range: 3.2 to 5.9 Range: 4.1 to 4.7
Mean: 0.8 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 0.8 - 1.0 Range: 1.3 - 1.4 Range: 0.5 to 1.1 Range: 0.6 to 0.7 Range: 0.2 to 0.3 Range: 0.2 to 0.4 Range: 0.3 to 0.3
Mean: 1.4 Mean: 2.0 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.1 - 1.4 Range: 1.9 - 2.0 Range: 0.8 to 2.0 Range: 0.7 to 1.0 Range: 0.3 to 0.7 Range: 0.5 to 0.7 Range: 0.4 to 0.5
Mean: 9.3 Mean: 10.5 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 8.9 - 9.7 Range: Range: 8.4 to 11.8
Range: 3.5 to 3.8 Range: 4.4 to 6.2
Mean: 1.8 Mean: 2.7 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.5 - 2.1 Range: Range: 0.8 to 1.3 Range: 0.4 to 0.4 Range: 0.4 to 0.7
Mean: 18 Mean: 131 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 15 - 25 Range: 122 - 140 Range: 13 to 30 Range: 40 to 100 Range:6 to 6 Range: 9 to 21 Range: 20 to 60
Mean: 2.1 Mean: 12 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.9 - 2.2 Range: 11 - 13 Range: 1.6 to 4.3 Range: 5.1 to 11.1 Range: 1.4 to 2.0 Range: 1.4 to 3.8 Range: 4.9 to 12.7
Mean: 10.1 Mean: 9 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 8.0 - 15.1 Range: 8 - 9 Range: 4.3 to 22.0 Range: 12.0 to 16.0 Range: 10.0 to 24.0 Range: 8.0 to 29.5 Range: 12.0 to 16.0
Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.4 - 1.8 Range: 1.4 - 1.5 Range: 1.3 to 2.2 Range: 1.2 to 1.5 Range: 1.3 to 2.3 Range: 1.7 to 2.5 Range: 1.2 to 1.5
Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.0 - 1.8 Range: Range: 1.4 to 2.5 Range: 1.0 to 1.3 Range: 3.0 to 3.7 Range: 1.7 to 2.4 Range: 1.0 to 1.3
Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull Mean: 1.9 Mean: 2 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Mean Depth (Dpool/Dbkf)Range: 0 - 2.1 Range: Range: 1.3 to 2.1 Range: 1.3 to 2.0 Range: 1.3 to 2.1
Pool Width / Bankfull Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Width (Wpool/Wbkf)Range: 0 - 1.2 Range: Range: 1.0 to 1.4 Range: 0.8 to 0.9 Range: 1.0 to 1.4
Pool Area / Bankfull Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Cross Sectional Area Range: 0 - 1.6 Range: Range: 1.1 to 1.6 Range: 1.0 to 1.0 Range: 1.1 to 1.6
Med: 37.2 Med: 44.3 Med: Med: Med:
Range: 25 - 69 Range: 22 - 81 Range: 25.3 to 67.6 Range: 10.3 to 37.2 Range: 13.3 to 35.4
Med: 68.4 Med: 62.9 Med: Med: Med:
Range: 44 - 116 Range: 10 - 91 Range: 50.7 to 101.4 Range: 22.4 to 62.6 Range: 26.6 to 53.1
Med: 22.8 Med: 29.8 Med: Med: Med:
Range: 20 - 38 Range: 17 - 36 Range: 25.3 to 50.7 Range: 17.7 to 31.1 Range: 13.3 to 26.6
Med: 16.5 Med: 30.6 Med: Med: Med:
Range: 11 - 27 Range: 9 - 113 Range: 16.9 to 84.5 Range: 5.2 to 17.0 Range: 8.9 to 44.3
Sinuosity (Sin)
Pool to Pool Spacing/Med: 4.6 Med: 4 Med: Med: Med:
Bankfull Width (Lp-p/Wbkf)Range: 3.1 - 8.4 Range: 2.0 - 7.4 Range: 3.0 to 8.0 Range: 2.6 to 9.5 Range: 3.0 to 8.0
Meander Length/Med: 8.4 Med: 5.7 Med: Med: Med:
Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf)Range: 5.5 - 14.3 Range: 0.9 - 8.3 Range: 6.0 to 12.0 Range: 5.7 to 16.1 Range: 6.0 to 12.0
Meander Width Ratio Med: 2.8 Med: 2.7 Med: Med: Med:
(Wbelt/Wbkf)Range: 2.4 - 4.7 Range: 1.5 - 3.5 Range: 3.0 to 6.0 Range: 4.5 to 8.0 Range: 3.0 to 6.0
Radius of Curvature/Med: 2.0 Med: 2.8 Med: Med: Med:
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf)Range: 1.4 - 3.3 Range: 0.8 - 10.3 Range: 2.0 to 10.0 Range: 1.3 to 4.4 Range: 2.0 to 10.0
Mean: 0.0316 Mean: 0.0098 Mean: Mean:
Range: 0.01 - 0.0576 Range: 0.002 - 0.01198 Range: 0.0068 to 0.0103 Range: 0.0232 to 0.0347
Mean: 0.0007 Mean: 0.0006 Mean: Mean:
Range: 0 - 0.018 Range: 0 - 0.004 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0040 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0135
Mean: 0.0353 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 0 - 0.3565 Range: Range: 0.0000 to 0.0046 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0154
Mean: 0.0029 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 0 - 0.0431 Range: Range: 0.0000 to 0.0046 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0154
Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.6 Mean: Mean:
Slope (Sriffle/Save)Range: 0.39 - 2.23 Range: 0 - 3.7 Range: 1.2 to 1.8 Range: 1.2 to 1.8
Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.0 Mean: 0.1 Mean: Mean:
Slope (Spool/Save)Range: 0 - 0.70 Range: 0 - 0.8 Range: 0.0 to 0.7 Range: 0.0 to 0.7
Run Slope/Water Surface Mean: 1.37 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Slope (Srun/Save)Range: 0 - 13.82 Range: Range: 0.0 to 0.8 Range: 0.0 to 0.8
Glide Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.11 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Slope (Sglide/Save)Range: 0 - 1.67 Range: Range: 0.0 to 0.8 Range: 0.0 to 0.8
* Causey Farm Reference includes measurments from a Reference Site measured in 2004.
10.1
5.8
2.6
1.7
0.9
1.0
23.4
39.3
22.7
0.0170
0.0194
Insufficient Water in Channel to
Measure Slope
Insufficient Water in Channel to
Measure Slope
1.7
3.3
Existing UT 2
10.2
6.0
0.3
0.5
6
1.6
15.6
3.7
0.4
Existing UT 2
Gf 4/5
0.01
3.2
1.0
5.8 - 9.0
1.60
0.10
0.40
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
8.5
4.0
3.0
0.0091
0.11
0.0006
0.0023
0.0006
1.1
1.9
1.1
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
71.8
33.8
25.3
0.4
4.9
14.0
1.4
1.4
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
9.3
0.3
0.6
2.2
14.0
1.4
1.0
17.4
2.0
2.2
0.8
5.1
8.5 8.4 4.5
E/C 4
0.13
5.1
9.5 - 24.6
19.3
3.9
Existing UT 3
75
8.9
14
17.7
Pattern Variables
PROPOSED
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Existing UT 3
Cg 5
0.02
5.0
1.4
3.9 - 7.3
Variables REFERENCE -
CEDAROCK PARK ProposedExisting UT 1
1.20
Radius of Curvature (Rc)
5.1
REFERENCE - CAUSEY*
FARM
0.6
Eb 4
Belt Width (Wbelt)
1.46
19.3
Dimension Variables
Width / Depth Ratio (Wbkf/Dbkf)
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf)
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmax)
28.8
Meander Length (Lm)
E 5
0.630.21
Profile Variables
60.6
Bankfull Width (W bkf)
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf)
Pattern Ratios
Dimension Ratios
Pool Width (Wpool)
Maximum Pool Depth (Dpool)
Width of Floodprone Area (Wfpa)
Max. Dbkf / Dbkf Ratio
Low Bank Height / Max. Dbkf Ratio
REFERENCE -
CEDAROCK PARK
REFERENCE - CAUSEY*
FARM Existing UT 1 Proposed
Pattern Variables
Pool to Pool Spacing (Lp-p)
Variables
33.8
0.0077
Riffle Slope (Sriffle)
Valley Slope (Svalley)
1.30
Average Water Surface Slope (Save)0.0057
0.0074
Pattern Ratios
8.5
Profile Ratios
0.0053
Run Slope (Srun)
Pool Slope (Spool)
0.0258
4.0
3.0
Glide Slope (Sglide)
0.0310
E/C 4
0.13
2.5
PROPOSED
4.4
1.4
1.4
Dimension Variables
5.0
0.02
Cg 5
0.6
40
9.0
Dimension Ratios
20
0.7
1.1
0.3
0.0077
0.0021
1.9
1.4
0.0222
13.3
1.15
4.0
1.30
37.6
17.7
0.0309
0.0019
1.07
0.0207
0.0222
4.0
1.14
0.11
1.60
14.6
1.8
1.9
Profile Ratios
Profile Variables
0.0074
0.40
0.10
1.1
0.0193
1.0
0.0057
Table B1 continuted. Heron Site Morphological Stream Characteristics
Stream Type
Drainage Area (mi2)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf)8.0 14.7
Existing Cross-Sectional Area at TOB (Aexisting)8.0 14.7
Mean: 8.1 Mean: 11.0 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 8.0 - 12.1 Range: 10.7 - 11.3 Range: 3.1 to 4.9 Range: 2.5 to 6.0 Range: 4.6 to 5.4 Range: 4.6 to 9.6 Range: 4.2 to 4.9
Mean: 0.8 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 0.8 - 1.0 Range: 1.3 - 1.4 Range: 0.4 to 0.6 Range: 0.3 to 0.7 Range: 0.3 to 0.4 Range: 0.2 to 0.3 Range: 0.3 to 0.4
Mean: 1.4 Mean: 2.0 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.1 - 1.4 Range: 1.9 - 2.0 Range: 0.7 to 0.9 Range: 0.5 to 0.9 Range: 0.4 to 0.6 Range: 0.4 to 0.8 Range: 0.4 to 0.5
Mean: 9.3 Mean: 10.5 Mean: Mean:
Range: 8.9 - 9.7 Range: Range: 5.0 to 7.0 Range: 4.6 to 6.4
Mean: 1.8 Mean: 2.7 Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.5 - 2.1 Range: Range: 0.5 to 0.8 Range: 0.4 to 0.7
Mean: 18 Mean: 131 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 15 - 25 Range: 122 - 140 Range: 6 to 30 Range: 4 to 30 Range: 25 to 75 Range: 7 to 46 Range: 25 to 75
Mean: 2.1 Mean: 12 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.9 - 2.2 Range: 11 - 13 Range: 1.3 to 6.1 Range: 1.4 to 7.3 Range: 5.4 to 14.0 Range: 1.1 to 4.8 Range: 5.9 to 15.3
Mean: 10.1 Mean: 9 Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean:
Range: 8.0 - 15.1 Range: 8 - 9 Range: 5.2 to 12.3 Range: 3.6 to 20.0 Range: 12.0 to 16.0 Range: 15.3 to 48.0 Range: 12.0 to 16.0
Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean:
Range: 1.4 - 1.8 Range: 1.4 - 1.5 Range: 1.3 to 1.8 Range: 1.3 to 2.0 Range: 1.2 to 1.5 Range: 1.3 to 4.0 Range: 1.2 to 1.5
Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.4 Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean:
Range: 1.0 - 1.8 Range: Range: 1.3 to 4.0 Range: 1.3 to 2.7 Range: 1.0 to 1.3 Range: 3.7 to 7.5 Range: 1.0 to 1.3
Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull Mean: 1.9 Mean: 2 Mean: Mean:
Mean Depth (Dpool/Dbkf)Range: 0 - 2.1 Range: Range: 1.3 to 2.1 Range: 1.3 to 2.1
Pool Width / Bankfull Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1 Mean: Mean:
Width (Wpool/Wbkf)Range: 0 - 1.2 Range: Range: 1.0 to 1.4 Range: 1.0 to 1.4
Pool Area / Bankfull Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean:
Cross Sectional Area Range: 0 - 1.6 Range: Range: 1.1 to 1.6 Range: 1.1 to 1.6
Med: 37.2 Med: 44.3 Med: Med:
Range: 25 - 69 Range: 22 - 81 Range: 15.1 to 40.2 Range: 13.7 to 36.7
Med: 68.4 Med: 62.9 Med: Med:
Range: 44 - 116 Range: 10 - 91 Range: 30.1 to 60.2 Range: 27.5 to 55.0
Med: 22.8 Med: 29.8 Med: Med:
Range: 20 - 38 Range: 17 - 36 Range: 15.1 to 30.1 Range: 13.7 to 27.5
Med: 16.5 Med: 30.6 Med: Med:
Range: 11 - 27 Range: 9 - 113 Range: 10.0 to 50.2 Range: 9.2 to 45.8
Sinuosity (Sin)
Pool to Pool Spacing/ Med: 4.6 Med: 4 Med: Med:
Bankfull Width (Lp-p/Wbkf)Range: 3.1 - 8.4 Range: 2.0 - 7.4 Range: 3.0 to 8.0 Range: 3.0 to 8.0
Meander Length/ Med: 8.4 Med: 5.7 Med: Med:
Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf)Range: 5.5 - 14.3 Range: 0.9 - 8.3 Range: 6.0 to 12.0 Range: 6.0 to 12.0
Meander Width Ratio Med: 2.8 Med: 2.7 Med: Med:
(Wbelt/Wbkf)Range: 2.4 - 4.7 Range: 1.5 - 3.5 Range: 3.0 to 6.0 Range: 3.0 to 6.0
Radius of Curvature/ Med: 2.0 Med: 2.8 Med: Med:
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf)Range: 1.4 - 3.3 Range: 0.8 - 10.3 Range: 2.0 to 10.0 Range: 2.0 to 10.0
Mean: 0.0316 Mean: 0.0098 Mean: Mean:
Range: 0.01 - 0.0576 Range: 0.002 - 0.01198 Range: 0.0373 to 0.0560 Range: 0.0313 to 0.0470
Mean: 0.0007 Mean: 0.0006 Mean: Mean:
Range: 0 - 0.018 Range: 0 - 0.004 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0218 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0183
Mean: 0.0353 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 0 - 0.3565 Range: Range: 0.0000 to 0.0249 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0209
Mean: 0.0029 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 0 - 0.0431 Range: Range: 0.0000 to 0.0249 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0209
Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.6 Mean: Mean:
Slope (Sriffle/Save)Range: 0.39 - 2.23 Range: 0 - 3.7 Range: 1.2 to 1.8 Range: 1.2 to 1.8
Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.0 Mean: 0.1 Mean: Mean:
Slope (Spool/Save)Range: 0 - 0.70 Range: 0 - 0.8 Range: 0.0 to 0.7 Range: 0.0 to 0.7
Run Slope/Water Surface Mean: 1.37 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Slope (Srun/Save)Range: 0 - 13.82 Range: Range: 0.0 to 0.8 Range: 0.0 to 0.8
Glide Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.11 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Slope (Sglide/Save)Range: 0 - 1.67 Range: Range: 0.0 to 0.8 Range: 0.0 to 0.8
* Causey Farm Reference includes measurments from a Reference Site measured in 2004.
0.10
0.40
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Profile Ratios
0.11 0.11
Profile Ratios
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
1.60
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
1.60
0.10
Run Slope (Srun)
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
0.40
0.0124 0.0104
Glide Slope (Sglide)0.0034 0.0029
0.03000.0260
Riffle Slope (Sriffle)
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
0.0498
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
0.0418
Pool Slope (Spool)0.0031 0.0026
Valley Slope (Svalley)0.0310 0.0077 0.0358 0.0358 0.0300
Profile Variables
Average Water Surface Slope (Save)0.0258 0.0053 0.0372 0.03110.0283
Profile Variables
0.0280 0.0261
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
1.15
Pattern Ratios
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
4.0
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
4.0
8.5 8.5
20.1 18.3
Radius of Curvature (Rc)15.1 13.7
1.20 1.46 1.04 1.15 1.07
Pattern Variables
Pool to Pool Spacing (Lp-p)
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
20.1
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
18.3
Meander Length (Lm)42.7 39.0
Belt Width (Wbelt)
1.4 1.4
Variables REFERENCE -
CEDAROCK PARK
REFERENCE - CAUSEY*
FARM Existing UT 5 Proposed Existing UT 6 PROPOSED
Low Bank Height / Max. Dbkf Ratio 2.0 1.0 5.0 1.0
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
1.9
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
1.9
1.1
Width / Depth Ratio (Wbkf/Dbkf)8.8 14.0 26.7 14.0
Max. Dbkf / Dbkf Ratio 1.5 1.4 2.2 1.4
Dimension Ratios
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf)3.1 10.0 2.4 10.9
12 50 16 50Width of Floodprone Area (Wfpa)
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
5.5 No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
5.0
Maximum Pool Depth (Dpool)0.7 0.6
Pool Width (Wpool)
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmax)0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5
2.5 - 9.7 1.8 15.4 - 98.2 1.5
Bankfull Width (W bkf)3.7 5.0 6.4 4.63.8
Dimension Variables
1.6 1.8 1.5 1.5
0.02 0.02
28.8 60.6 5.5 5.5 - 7.3 5.2 5.2
0.21 0.63
Existing UT 6 PROPOSED
Eb 4 E 5 Eg 5 E/C 4 Cg 5 E/C 4
Existing UT 5 Proposed
0.02 0.02 - 0.03
Variables REFERENCE -
CEDAROCK PARK
REFERENCE - CAUSEY*
FARM
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf)
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
15
3.9
1.5
2.3
1.09
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Dimension Ratios
Pattern Variables
Pattern Ratios
Existing UT 4
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
1.1
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Existing UT 4
Eg 5
0.03
7.3
2.0
2.7 - 6.9
Dimension Variables
0.8
7.7
Table B1 continuted. Heron Site Morphological Stream Characteristics
Stream Type
Drainage Area (mi2)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf)8.0 14.7
Existing Cross-Sectional Area at TOB (Aexisting)8.0 14.7
Mean: 8.1 Mean: 11.0 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 8.0 - 12.1 Range: 10.7 - 11.3 Range: 4.1 to 6.7 Range: 4.9 to 5.7 Range: 4.2 to 6.1 Range: 5.5 to 6.3
Mean: 0.8 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 0.8 - 1.0 Range: 1.3 - 1.4 Range: 0.3 to 0.5 Range: 0.4 to 0.4 Range: 0.4 to 0.6 Range: 0.4 to 0.5
Mean: 1.4 Mean: 2.0 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.1 - 1.4 Range: 1.9 - 2.0 Range: 0.4 to 0.8 Range: 0.5 to 0.6 Range: 0.6 to 1.0 Range: 0.5 to 0.7
Mean: 9.3 Mean: 10.5 Mean: Mean:
Range: 8.9 - 9.7 Range: Range: 5.3 to 7.4 Range: 5.9 to 8.3
Mean: 1.8 Mean: 2.7 Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.5 - 2.1 Range: Range: 0.5 to 0.8 Range: 0.5 to 0.9
Mean: 18 Mean: 131 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 15 - 25 Range: 122 - 140 Range: 7 to 29 Range: 25 to 75 Range: 5 to 30 Range: 25 to 75
Mean: 2.1 Mean: 12 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.9 - 2.2 Range: 11 - 13 Range: 1.7 to 5.2 Range: 5.1 to 13.3 Range: 1.1 to 4.9 Range: 4.6 to 11.9
Mean: 10.1 Mean: 9 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 8.0 - 15.1 Range: 8 - 9 Range: 8.2 to 22.3 Range: 12.0 to 16.0 Range: 7.0 to 15.3 Range: 12.0 to 16.0
Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.4 - 1.8 Range: 1.4 - 1.5 Range: 1.3 to 2.0 Range: 1.2 to 1.5 Range: 1.2 to 2.3 Range: 1.2 to 1.5
Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 1.0 - 1.8 Range: Range: 1.8 to 4.1 Range: 1.0 to 1.3 Range: 1.4 to 3.7 Range: 1.0 to 1.3
Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull Mean: 1.9 Mean: 2 Mean: Mean:
Mean Depth (Dpool/Dbkf)Range: 0 - 2.1 Range: Range: 1.3 to 2.1 Range: 1.3 to 2.1
Pool Width / Bankfull Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1 Mean: Mean:
Width (Wpool/Wbkf)Range: 0 - 1.2 Range: Range: 1.0 to 1.4 Range: 1.0 to 1.4
Pool Area / Bankfull Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean: Mean:
Cross Sectional Area Range: 0 - 1.6 Range: Range: 1.1 to 1.6 Range: 1.1 to 1.6
Med: 37.2 Med: 44.3 Med: Med:
Range: 25 - 69 Range: 22 - 81 Range: 15.9 to 42.3 Range: 17.7 to 47.3
Med: 68.4 Med: 62.9 Med: Med:
Range: 44 - 116 Range: 10 - 91 Range: 31.7 to 63.5 Range: 35.5 to 71.0
Med: 22.8 Med: 29.8 Med: Med:
Range: 20 - 38 Range: 17 - 36 Range: 15.9 to 31.7 Range: 17.7 to 35.5
Med: 16.5 Med: 30.6 Med: Med:
Range: 11 - 27 Range: 9 - 113 Range: 10.6 to 52.9 Range: 11.8 to 59.2
Sinuosity (Sin)
Pool to Pool Spacing/Med: 4.6 Med: 4 Med: Med:
Bankfull Width (Lp-p/Wbkf)Range: 3.1 - 8.4 Range: 2.0 - 7.4 Range: 3.0 to 8.0 Range: 3.0 to 8.0
Meander Length/Med: 8.4 Med: 5.7 Med: Med:
Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf)Range: 5.5 - 14.3 Range: 0.9 - 8.3 Range: 6.0 to 12.0 Range: 6.0 to 12.0
Meander Width Ratio Med: 2.8 Med: 2.7 Med: Med:
(Wbelt/Wbkf)Range: 2.4 - 4.7 Range: 1.5 - 3.5 Range: 3.0 to 6.0 Range: 3.0 to 6.0
Radius of Curvature/Med: 2.0 Med: 2.8 Med: Med:
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf)Range: 1.4 - 3.3 Range: 0.8 - 10.3 Range: 2.0 to 10.0 Range: 2.0 to 10.0
Mean: 0.0316 Mean: 0.0098 Mean: Mean:
Range: 0.01 - 0.0576 Range: 0.002 - 0.01198 Range: 0.0266 to 0.0400 Range: 0.0228 to 0.0342
Mean: 0.0007 Mean: 0.0006 Mean: Mean:
Range: 0 - 0.018 Range: 0 - 0.004 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0155 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0133
Mean: 0.0353 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 0 - 0.3565 Range: Range: 0.0000 to 0.0178 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0152
Mean: 0.0029 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Range: 0 - 0.0431 Range: Range: 0.0000 to 0.0178 Range: 0.0000 to 0.0152
Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.6 Mean: Mean:
Slope (Sriffle/Save)Range: 0.39 - 2.23 Range: 0 - 3.7 Range: 1.2 to 1.8 Range: 1.2 to 1.8
Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.0 Mean: 0.1 Mean: Mean:
Slope (Spool/Save)Range: 0 - 0.70 Range: 0 - 0.8 Range: 0.0 to 0.7 Range: 0.0 to 0.7
Run Slope/Water Surface Mean: 1.37 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Slope (Srun/Save)Range: 0 - 13.82 Range: Range: 0.0 to 0.8 Range: 0.0 to 0.8
Glide Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.11 Mean: Mean: Mean:
Slope (Sglide/Save)Range: 0 - 1.67 Range: Range: 0.0 to 0.8 Range: 0.0 to 0.8
* Causey Farm Reference includes measurments from a Reference Site measured in 2004.
0.11 0.11
Profile Ratios Profile Ratios
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
1.60
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
1.60
0.10 0.10
0.40 0.40
0.0089 0.0076
Glide Slope (Sglide)0.0024 0.0021
0.0218
Riffle Slope (Sriffle)
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
0.0355
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
0.0304
Pool Slope (Spool)0.0022 0.0019
Run Slope (Srun)
Valley Slope (Svalley)0.0310 0.0077 0.0255 0.0255 0.0218
Profile Variables Profile Variables
Average Water Surface Slope (Save)0.0258 0.0053 0.0248 0.0222 0.0210 0.0190
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
Pattern Ratios Pattern Ratios
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
4.0
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
4.0
8.5 8.5
1.20 1.46 1.03 1.15 1.04 1.15
Belt Width (Wbelt)21.2 23.7
Radius of Curvature (Rc)15.9 17.7
Pattern Variables Pattern Variables
Pool to Pool Spacing (Lp-p)
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
21.2
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
23.7
Meander Length (Lm)45.0 50.3
1.1
1.4 1.4
Variables REFERENCE -
CEDAROCK PARK
REFERENCE - CAUSEY*
FARM Existing UT 7 Proposed Existing UT 8 PROPOSED
Low Bank Height / Max. Dbkf Ratio 2.5 1.0 2.3 1.0
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
1.9
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
1.9
1.1
Width / Depth Ratio (Wbkf/Dbkf)14.5 14.0 11.3 14.0
Max. Dbkf / Dbkf Ratio 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.4
Dimension Ratios Dimension Ratios
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf)2.4 9.4 2.7 8.5
Width of Floodprone Area (Wfpa)13 50 15 50
Pool Width (Wpool)No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
5.8 No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
6.5
Maximum Pool Depth (Dpool)0.7 0.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf)0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4
Bankfull Maximum Depth (D max)0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6
2.5 - 16.1 2 4.7 - 12.5 2.5
Bankfull Width (W bkf)5.3 5.3 5.1 5.9
Dimension Variables Dimension Variables
2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5
0.03 0.05 0.05
28.8 60.6 7.0 7.0 9.1 9.1
Proposed Existing UT 8 PROPOSED
Eb 4 E 5 Cg 5 Eb 4 Eg 5 E/C 4
Variables REFERENCE -
CEDAROCK PARK
REFERENCE - CAUSEY*
FARM Existing UT 7
0.21 0.63 0.03
XS 34
XS 9
XS 10
XS 12
UT 3 f
XS 11
XS 26
UT 1
XS 37 /
UT 1, �XS5
t
i
XS 14
XS 15
XS 21
UT 2
XS 4
XS 9
XS
UT 7
UT 6
XS 24
XS 26 XS 20
XS 17
/XS 12
XS 9
�XS7
UT 8
S3
XS 2
UT 7
AW
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Heron
Mitigation Site
Alamance County
North Carolina
Title:
CROSS SECTION
LOCATIONS
Scale: FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
Date: B 1
Nov 2017
Project No.:
17-008

Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 1 Downstream - XS 5 section:Heron UT 1 Downstream - XS 14
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 1 Downstream - XS 5 description:Heron UT 1 Downstream - XS 14
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 0.623351 99.37665 3.02 1.75 18.0 ###0 -2.634284 102.6343 0.6 -0.6 20.0
###7.141859 0.104731 99.89527 96.98 98.25 ###17.70195 -1.018483 101.0185 99.4 100.6
###115.5975 1.126542 98.87346 ###31.34842 -0.483043 100.483
###131.9495 1.16911 98.83089 dimensions ###50.15866 -0.812219 100.8122 dimensions
###143.0791 1.291963 98.70804 5.1 x-section area 0.5 d mean ###69.37479 -0.648303 100.6483 5.1 x-section area 1.1 d mean
###157.0825 1.178553 98.82145 11.1 width 11.4 wet P ###85.33167 -0.741994 100.742 4.7 width 6.5 wet P
###170.1934 1.394636 98.60536 1.1 d max 0.5 hyd radi ###95.21324 -0.575222 100.5752 2.0 d max 0.8 hyd radi
###177.5247 1.360445 98.63956 2.3 bank ht 23.8 w/d ratio ###100.5737 0.491768 99.50823 3.2 bank ht 4.2 w/d ratio
###181.4555 1.752192 98.24781 18.0 W flood prone area 1.6 ent ratio ###102.0789 1.423755 98.57625 20.0 W flood prone area 4.3 ent ratio
###183.8654 2.889266 97.11073 ###103.1212 2.278733 97.72127
###186.5252 3.470384 96.52962 hydraulics ###104.4663 2.587277 97.41272 hydraulics
###188.4829 3.260898 96.7391 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)###105.228 0.662185 99.33782 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
###190.2495 3.935042 96.06496 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)###108.7364 -0.597238 100.5972 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
###190.9624 4.072136 95.92786 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)###119.3615 -0.394237 100.3942 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
###193.6178 3.407056 96.59294 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)###133.6049 -0.674295 100.6743 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
###197.3507 2.648945 97.35106 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
###199.3812 2.036114 97.96389 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
###203.359 1.108439 98.89156 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
###209.9819 -0.196692 100.1967 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 1 Downstream -XS 5 Riffle ---
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 1 Downstream -XS 14 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 1 Downstream - XS 15 section:Heron UT 1 Upstream - XS 21
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 1 Downstream - XS 15 description:Heron UT 1 Upstream - XS 21
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -2.543241 102.5432 -0.96 -2.19 13.0 ###0 -5.194343 105.1943 -3.9 -4.3 30.0
###19.63581 -2.219617 102.2196 100.96 102.19 ###4.245586 -4.816305 104.8163 103.9 104.3
###36.5558 -2.23059 102.2306 ###8.184355 -4.304283 104.3043
###56.16111 -2.320444 102.3204 dimensions ###9.917778 -3.50807 103.5081 dimensions
###74.47336 -2.77354 102.7735 5.1 x-section area 0.8 d mean ###11.60643 -3.350289 103.3503 5.1 x-section area 0.5 d mean
###95.84345 -2.744081 102.7441 6.3 width 6.9 wet P ###13.42516 -3.031462 103.0315 9.5 width 9.7 wet P
###108.224 -2.18905 102.1891 1.3 d max 0.7 hyd radi ###16.38291 -3.295584 103.2956 0.9 d max 0.5 hyd radi
###113.2956 -0.940293 100.9403 2.5 bank ht 7.9 w/d ratio ###18.84005 -3.987242 103.9872 1.3 bank ht 17.6 w/d ratio
###115.0309 0.126744 99.87326 13.0 W flood prone area 2.1 ent ratio ###20.83721 -4.297119 104.2971 30.0 W flood prone area 3.2 ent ratio
###116.6572 0.29137 99.70863 ###27.5728 -4.625698 104.6257
###118.7639 -0.349115 100.3491 hydraulics ###32.95613 -4.625881 104.6259 hydraulics
###121.2467 -2.299033 102.299 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
###126.652 -2.772475 102.7725 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
###140.0924 -3.155201 103.1552 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
###152.9345 -3.704474 103.7045 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
102
102.5
103
103.5
104
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 1 Downstream -XS 15 Riffle ---
102.5
103
103.5
104
104.5
105
105.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 1 Upstream -XS 21 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 1 Upstream - XS 26 section:Heron UT 1 Upstream - XS 34
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 1 Upstream - XS 26 description:Heron UT 1 Upstream - XS 34
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -5.167462 105.1675 -4.21 -4.98 17.0 ###0 -7.612184 107.6122 -6.04 -7.01 25.0
###4.802315 -5.136844 105.1368 104.21 104.98 ###2.553356 -7.625539 107.6255 106.04 107.01
###11.73415 -4.975743 104.9757 ###4.507179 -7.467489 107.4675
###14.49488 -4.374457 104.3745 dimensions ###9.462164 -5.830091 105.8301 dimensions
###15.75786 -3.748539 103.7485 5.1 x-section area 0.6 d mean ###11.38079 -5.666231 105.6662 5.1 x-section area 0.5 d mean
###18.46675 -3.344715 103.3447 9.2 width 9.4 wet P ###12.65811 -5.533168 105.5332 9.6 width 9.9 wet P
###23.07794 -3.824306 103.8243 0.9 d max 0.5 hyd radi ###13.63662 -5.048589 105.0486 1.0 d max 0.5 hyd radi
###25.80613 -4.951802 104.9518 1.6 bank ht 16.6 w/d ratio ###15.03585 -4.995079 104.9951 2.0 bank ht 17.9 w/d ratio
###29.39871 -5.344177 105.3442 17.0 W flood prone area 1.9 ent ratio ###17.82174 -5.847315 105.8473 25.0 W flood prone area 2.6 ent ratio
###36.83811 -5.100516 105.1005 ###21.34502 -7.010728 107.0107
####N/A hydraulics ###24.91908 -6.924956 106.925 hydraulics
####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
103
103.5
104
104.5
105
105.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 1 Upstream -XS 26 Riffle ---
104.5
105
105.5
106
106.5
107
107.5
108
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 1 Upstream -XS 34 Riffle ---
Cross Section
For additional cross sections make a copy of the "Dimension" worksheet.
To create a copy "right click" on the dimension tab below.
section:Heron UT 1 Upstream - XS 37
Riffle
---
---
description:Heron UT 1 Upstream - XS 37
height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -8.325709 108.3257 -7.02 -8.23 19.0
###5.570001 -8.300416 108.3004 107.02 108.23
###10.60834 -8.228118 108.2281
###11.56947 -7.227906 107.2279 dimensions
###13.63712 -6.254176 106.2542 5.1 x-section area 0.6 d mean
###16.34398 -6.225243 106.2252 8.8 width 9.1 wet P
###17.92128 -6.182287 106.1823 0.8 d max 0.6 hyd radi
###19.35178 -6.688275 106.6883 2.0 bank ht 15.1 w/d ratio
###21.67276 -7.229984 107.23 19.0 W flood prone area 2.2 ent ratio
###24.10806 -7.619447 107.6194
###30.83467 -7.919251 107.9193 hydraulics
###35.25682 -8.334285 108.3343 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A
####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A
106
106.5
107
107.5
108
108.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 1 Upstream -XS 37 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 3 - XS 9 section:Heron UT 3 - XS 10
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Major Hill - XS 16 description:Heron UT 3 - XS 10
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 11.7482 88.2518 19.25 19.05 15.0 ###0 21.22466 78.77534 25.32 24.64 6.0
###24.5893 14.79431 85.20569 80.75 80.95 ###11.32494 21.91026 78.08974 74.68 75.36
###41.8566 16.5648 83.4352 ###32.716 23.03771 76.96229
###57.57014 18.25934 81.74066 dimensions ###40.51483 23.75684 76.24316 dimensions
###70.65327 19.08588 80.91412 1.4 x-section area 0.4 d mean ###46.75931 24.2945 75.7055 1.4 x-section area 0.3 d mean
###77.06373 19.0525 80.9475 3.3 width 3.6 wet P ###50.87182 24.63855 75.36145 4.4 width 4.6 wet P
###81.90404 19.0488 80.9512 0.6 d max 0.4 hyd radi ###54.64443 25.81375 74.18626 0.5 d max 0.3 hyd radi
###83.44283 19.8602 80.1398 0.8 bank ht 8.0 w/d ratio ###56.87534 25.66565 74.33435 1.2 bank ht 13.4 w/d ratio
###84.47991 19.89957 80.10043 15.0 W flood prone area 4.5 ent ratio ###59.15972 24.25127 75.74873 6.0 W flood prone area 1.4 ent ratio
###86.13026 18.94262 81.05738 ###63.51316 23.12055 76.87945
###94.0556 18.73933 81.26067 hydraulics ###72.44177 21.08707 78.91293 hydraulics
###107.6749 18.61595 81.38406 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)###80.25382 19.85817 80.14183 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
###112.895 18.07476 81.92524 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)###92.96824 18.3565 81.6435 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
###125.9637 16.47982 83.52018 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)###103.141 16.88098 83.11902 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
###135.175 15.05789 84.94211 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)###112.3654 15.68455 84.31545 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
###151.1903 13.4547 86.5453 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
80
80.2
80.4
80.6
80.8
81
81.2
81.4
81.6
81.8
82
70 75 80 85 90 95 100Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 3 -XS 9 Riffle ---
73.5
74
74.5
75
75.5
76
76.5
77
77.5
78
40 45 50 55 60 65 70Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 3 -XS 10 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 3 - XS 11 section:Heron UT 3 - XS 12
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 3 - XS 11 description:Heron UT 3 - XS 12
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 22.30247 77.69753 26.45 25.76 9.0 ###0 25.54737 74.45263 28.8 28.28 12.0
###13.38725 22.88239 77.11762 73.55 74.24 ###14.86919 26.39094 73.60906 71.2 71.72
###28.67774 23.81444 76.18556 ###22.17293 26.7646 73.2354
###38.96493 24.90284 75.09717 dimensions ###32.81466 27.48145 72.51855 dimensions
###46.66575 25.7597 74.2403 1.4 x-section area 0.2 d mean ###42.97031 27.71816 72.28185 1.4 x-section area 0.4 d mean
###49.10806 26.7494 73.2506 5.9 width 6.2 wet P ###55.63639 28.27697 71.72303 3.2 width 3.6 wet P
###52.4095 26.27791 73.72209 0.5 d max 0.2 hyd radi ###57.4224 28.75634 71.24366 0.7 d max 0.4 hyd radi
###54.08237 26.93989 73.06011 1.2 bank ht 24.3 w/d ratio ###59.01435 29.51518 70.48482 1.2 bank ht 7.2 w/d ratio
###55.43899 26.84785 73.15215 9.0 W flood prone area 1.5 ent ratio ###60.03552 29.41176 70.58824 12.0 W flood prone area 3.8 ent ratio
###56.78182 25.62497 74.37504 ###60.79263 28.71092 71.28908
###66.14574 24.19208 75.80792 hydraulics ###63.01452 28.05585 71.94415 hydraulics
###76.71326 22.58253 77.41747 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)###66.99702 28.1227 71.87731 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
###84.047 21.24407 78.75593 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)###70.58041 28.17123 71.82877 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)###74.77227 27.32233 72.67767 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)###81.30691 25.92309 74.07691 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
72.5
73
73.5
74
74.5
75
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 3 -XS 11 Riffle ---
70
70.5
71
71.5
72
72.5
73
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 3 -XS 12 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 4 - XS 4 section:Heron UT 4 - XS 7
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 4 - XS 4 description:Heron UT 4 - XS 7
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 1.694436 98.30556 2.02 1.89 30.0 ###0 2.7071 97.2929 4.75 4.53 9.0
###6.107382 1.427643 98.57236 97.98 98.11 ###6.755045 2.93935 97.06065 95.25 95.47
###12.87004 1.788489 98.21151 ###10.05756 3.867045 96.13296
###19.45521 1.804471 98.19553 dimensions ###12.31761 4.487377 95.51262 dimensions
###22.80475 1.892467 98.10753 2.0 x-section area 0.4 d mean ###13.34873 4.527618 95.47238 2.0 x-section area 0.6 d mean
###24.31504 2.052573 97.94743 4.9 width 5.3 wet P ###14.09767 5.360661 94.63934 3.4 width 4.0 wet P
###24.98728 2.740409 97.25959 0.7 d max 0.4 hyd radi ###15.33231 5.566278 94.43372 0.8 d max 0.5 hyd radi
###26.91684 2.534657 97.46534 0.9 bank ht 12.2 w/d ratio ###16.21627 5.524861 94.47514 1.0 bank ht 5.6 w/d ratio
###28.67838 2.110186 97.88981 30.0 W flood prone area 6.1 ent ratio ###17.26792 4.339966 95.66003 9.0 W flood prone area 2.7 ent ratio
###31.1678 1.268863 98.73114 ###19.83652 3.722157 96.27784
###33.58251 0.699518 99.30048 hydraulics ###23.10894 3.421325 96.57868 hydraulics
####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 4 -XS 4 Riffle ---
94
94.5
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
0 5 10 15 20 25Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 4 -XS 7 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 4 - XS 8 section:Heron UT 4 - XS 11
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 4 - XS 8 description:Heron UT 4 - XS 11
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 3.633353 96.36665 6.05 5.47 16.0 ###0 7.971875 92.02813 8.87 7.94 6.0
###4.903892 4.50065 95.49935 93.95 94.53 ###6.642123 7.580386 92.41961 91.13 92.06
###13.03446 4.812957 95.18704 ###19.13462 7.542352 92.45765
###20.70104 4.858116 95.14188 dimensions ###26.26106 7.63884 92.36116 dimensions
###26.03952 5.324838 94.67516 2.0 x-section area 0.6 d mean ###31.59086 7.367332 92.63267 2.0 x-section area 0.5 d mean
###27.03662 5.771755 94.22825 3.1 width 3.9 wet P ###41.22064 7.255318 92.74468 3.8 width 4.2 wet P
###28.06329 5.956416 94.04358 0.9 d max 0.5 hyd radi ###43.62667 8.005464 91.99454 0.8 d max 0.5 hyd radi
###29.13589 6.923974 93.07603 1.5 bank ht 4.8 w/d ratio ###45.57215 9.427821 90.57218 1.7 bank ht 7.3 w/d ratio
###30.85242 6.841524 93.15848 16.0 W flood prone area 5.1 ent ratio ###46.95691 9.685429 90.31457 6.0 W flood prone area 1.6 ent ratio
###31.59596 5.465802 94.5342 ###47.92821 9.381981 90.61802
###34.13591 5.572918 94.42708 hydraulics ###49.55128 8.171974 91.82803 hydraulics
###39.81314 5.467448 94.53255 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)###53.11971 7.649413 92.35059 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
###44.52521 5.115702 94.8843 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)###56.34191 7.415014 92.58499 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
###46.19017 3.997243 96.00276 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)###61.36438 7.933947 92.06605 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)###65.2343 7.937619 92.06238 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
92.5
93
93.5
94
94.5
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 4 -XS 8 Riffle ---
90
90.5
91
91.5
92
92.5
93
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 4 -XS 11 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 5 - XS 13 section:Heron UT 5 - XS 15
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 5 - XS 13 description:Heron UT 5 - XS 15
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 5.420035 94.57997 7.66 6.45 3.5 ###0 3.827859 96.17214 3.55 3.38 30.0
###8.035526 5.744535 94.25547 92.34 93.55 ###7.180778 3.403673 96.59633 96.45 96.62
###15.04724 6.451709 93.54829 ###12.57163 3.320819 96.67918
###16.59244 7.160926 92.83907 dimensions ###18.04137 3.384488 96.61551 dimensions
###17.19698 8.435369 91.56463 1.6 x-section area 0.7 d mean ###21.3569 3.655956 96.34404 1.6 x-section area 0.4 d mean
###17.87092 8.496997 91.503 2.5 width 3.4 wet P ###21.97126 4.164515 95.83549 4.1 width 4.6 wet P
###18.32244 8.537821 91.46218 0.9 d max 0.5 hyd radi ###23.41986 4.342916 95.65708 0.8 d max 0.3 hyd radi
###19.15329 8.064174 91.93583 2.1 bank ht 3.8 w/d ratio ###24.17143 3.523664 96.47634 1.0 bank ht 10.4 w/d ratio
###19.88785 6.193678 93.80632 3.5 W flood prone area 1.4 ent ratio ###27.41051 3.035459 96.96454 30.0 W flood prone area 7.3 ent ratio
###23.9561 5.938399 94.0616 ###32.42741 2.725272 97.27473
###29.69039 4.623736 95.37626 hydraulics ###36.48266 2.490952 97.50905 hydraulics
###34.87577 4.443241 95.55676 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
91
91.5
92
92.5
93
93.5
94
94.5
95
95.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 5 -XS 13 Riffle ---
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
98
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 5 -XS 15 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 5 - XS 17 section:Heron UT 5 - XS 21
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 5 - XS 17 description:Heron UT 5 - XS 21
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 0.825247 99.17475 1.77 1.25 7.0 ###0 -3.992094 103.9921 -1.52 -2.7 8.0
###9.525424 0.468832 99.53117 98.23 98.75 ###7.759706 -3.37844 103.3784 101.52 102.7
###15.05768 1.249297 98.7507 ###14.98396 -2.959636 102.9596
###16.56215 2.533309 97.46669 dimensions ###18.67251 -1.873156 101.8732 dimensions
###18.08031 2.682392 97.31761 1.6 x-section area 0.7 d mean ###20.05036 -1.254372 101.2544 1.6 x-section area 0.5 d mean
###18.16204 1.058901 98.9411 2.5 width 3.6 wet P ###21.10004 -1.03901 101.039 3.4 width 4.1 wet P
###22.94981 0.186391 99.81361 0.9 d max 0.5 hyd radi ###21.87788 -0.802834 100.8028 0.7 d max 0.4 hyd radi
###27.78454 -0.011614 100.0116 1.4 bank ht 3.7 w/d ratio ###22.62185 -0.780614 100.7806 1.9 bank ht 7.5 w/d ratio
####N/A 7.0 W flood prone area 2.8 ent ratio ###22.90749 -1.54967 101.5497 8.0 W flood prone area 2.3 ent ratio
####N/A ###26.62143 -2.697188 102.6972
####N/A hydraulics ###34.73989 -2.523626 102.5236 hydraulics
####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)###43.67771 -3.097858 103.0979 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 5 -XS 17 Riffle ---
100.5
101
101.5
102
102.5
103
103.5
104
104.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 5 -XS 21 Riffle ---
Cross Section
section:Heron UT 5 - XS 25
Riffle
---
---
description:Heron UT 5 - XS 25
height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -8.95915 108.9592 -6.75 -7.29 10.0
###8.572748 -8.203612 108.2036 106.75 107.29
###14.95056 -7.285359 107.2854
###17.73405 -6.292567 106.2926 dimensions
###20.20078 -6.42717 106.4272 1.6 x-section area 0.3 d mean
###23.70184 -6.922685 106.9227 6.0 width 6.1 wet P
###27.84943 -7.760692 107.7607 0.5 d max 0.3 hyd radi
###34.37466 -8.183252 108.1833 1.0 bank ht 22.4 w/d ratio
####N/A 10.0 W flood prone area 1.7 ent ratio
####N/A
####N/A hydraulics
####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A
####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A
106
106.5
107
107.5
108
108.5
109
109.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 5 -XS 25 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 6 - XS 2 section:Heron UT 6 - XS 3
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 6 - XS 2 description:Heron UT 6 - XS 3
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 0.547934 99.45207 2.5 0.28 46.0 ###0 -1.121737 101.1217 1.88 -0.03 14.0
###75.6793 0.276923 99.72308 97.5 99.72 ###4.704173 -0.457747 100.4577 98.12 100.03
###79.08149 0.6636 99.3364 ###8.436327 -0.487734 100.4877
###83.04675 1.941313 98.05869 dimensions ###12.27512 -0.029507 100.0295 dimensions
###95.00282 2.161566 97.83843 1.5 x-section area 0.2 d mean ###14.30199 1.17257 98.82743 1.5 x-section area 0.3 d mean
###108.9772 2.666726 97.33327 9.6 width 10.1 wet P ###19.20736 1.41803 98.58197 4.6 width 4.9 wet P
###120.7377 1.925947 98.07405 0.8 d max 0.2 hyd radi ###20.80005 2.53594 97.46406 0.7 d max 0.3 hyd radi
###123.4493 3.268897 96.7311 3.0 bank ht 61.1 w/d ratio ###27.44519 1.349299 98.6507 2.6 bank ht 14.0 w/d ratio
###124.5573 2.237795 97.76221 46.0 W flood prone area 4.8 ent ratio ###33.9146 0.68249 99.31751 14.0 W flood prone area 3.0 ent ratio
###127.5813 1.773138 98.22686 ###37.90464 0.211612 99.78839
###135.1713 -0.097745 100.0977 hydraulics ###44.60083 -0.485294 100.4853 hydraulics
###145.6592 -2.331051 102.3311 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 6 -XS 2 Riffle ---
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 6 -XS 3 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 6 - XS 5 section:Heron UT 6 - XS 6
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 6 - XS 5 description:Heron UT 6 - XS 6
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -3.136383 103.1364 1.35 -1.19 9.0 ###0 -5.107818 105.1078 -1.22 -2.75 7.0
###8.896437 -2.590998 102.591 98.65 101.19 ###5.010166 -3.995349 103.9953 101.22 102.75
###18.77993 -1.932003 101.932 ###10.19764 -3.297722 103.2977
###24.36105 -1.204845 101.2048 dimensions ###13.92587 -2.945199 102.9452 dimensions
###28.27157 0.36611 99.63389 1.5 x-section area 0.3 d mean ###16.40797 -1.019446 101.0194 1.5 x-section area 0.2 d mean
###35.28761 1.063859 98.93614 5.5 width 5.6 wet P ###19.53875 -0.863434 100.8634 6.6 width 6.7 wet P
###38.03767 1.785655 98.21435 0.4 d max 0.3 hyd radi ###22.70209 -1.203885 101.2039 0.4 d max 0.2 hyd radi
###40.64508 1.653322 98.34668 3.0 bank ht 19.8 w/d ratio ###24.20329 -2.119199 102.1192 1.9 bank ht 29.1 w/d ratio
###45.7294 0.357226 99.64277 9.0 W flood prone area 1.6 ent ratio ###26.45447 -2.745982 102.746 7.0 W flood prone area 1.1 ent ratio
###50.16445 0.259825 99.74018 ###33.58295 -3.22527 103.2253
###55.02288 -1.19803 101.198 hydraulics ###39.22602 -3.301976 103.302 hydraulics
####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)###48.18361 -3.019769 103.0198 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)###58.58147 -3.358079 103.3581 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 6 -XS 5 Riffle ---
100.5
101
101.5
102
102.5
103
103.5
104
104.5
105
105.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 6 -XS 6 Riffle ---
Cross Section
section:Heron UT 6 - XS 7
Riffle
---
---
description:Heron UT 6 - XS 7
height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -10.45259 110.4526 -2.4 -4.2 7.0
###10.307 -9.163992 109.164 102.4 104.2
###14.60834 -7.807966 107.808
###19.68968 -4.807787 104.8078 dimensions
###22.50318 -2.234225 102.2342 1.5 x-section area 0.3 d mean
###25.1908 -2.012344 102.0123 5.6 width 5.7 wet P
###27.62137 -2.178747 102.1787 0.4 d max 0.3 hyd radi
###30.19682 -4.200131 104.2001 2.2 bank ht 20.4 w/d ratio
###34.76816 -4.892201 104.8922 7.0 W flood prone area 1.3 ent ratio
###41.66387 -5.376576 105.3766
###48.01961 -5.855613 105.8556 hydraulics
###53.35921 -6.276139 106.2761 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
###60.2526 -6.718926 106.7189 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
###65.37831 -7.122694 107.1227 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A
####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 6 -XS 7 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 7 - XS 7 section:Heron UT 7 - XS 9
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 7 - XS 7 description:Heron UT 7 - XS 9
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -0.523832 100.5238 -0.2 -0.27 29.0 ###0 -2.072011 102.072 -1.4 -1.74 15.0
###7.731476 -0.562583 100.5626 100.2 100.27 ###6.20136 -1.827711 101.8277 101.4 101.74
###12.60067 -0.273892 100.2739 ###12.25262 -1.94154 101.9415
###14.90647 0.451663 99.54834 dimensions ###15.76485 -1.556707 101.5567 dimensions
###15.78147 0.585913 99.41409 2.0 x-section area 0.4 d mean ###17.16263 -1.201165 101.2012 2.0 x-section area 0.3 d mean
###16.75517 0.06176 99.93824 5.6 width 5.9 wet P ###19.50172 -1.007097 101.0071 6.7 width 6.8 wet P
###19.46844 -0.350763 100.3508 0.8 d max 0.3 hyd radi ###22.3296 -1.013441 101.0134 0.4 d max 0.3 hyd radi
###27.72427 -0.81638 100.8164 0.9 bank ht 15.6 w/d ratio ###23.20473 -1.483784 101.4838 0.7 bank ht 22.1 w/d ratio
###32.31623 -1.361813 101.3618 29.0 W flood prone area 5.1 ent ratio ###27.20733 -1.739905 101.7399 15.0 W flood prone area 2.2 ent ratio
####N/A ###31.41874 -1.796409 101.7964
####N/A hydraulics ###35.46019 -2.360602 102.3606 hydraulics
####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
99
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 7 -XS 7 Riffle ---
100.8
101
101.2
101.4
101.6
101.8
102
102.2
102.4
102.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 7 -XS 9 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 7 - XS 12 section:Heron UT 7 - XS 17
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 7 - XS 12 description:Heron UT 7 - XS 17
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -4.254249 104.2542 -2.9 -3.27 11.0 ###0 -8.045835 108.0458 -6.35 -7.06 8.0
###8.309588 -3.937043 103.937 102.9 103.27 ###5.149854 -7.839129 107.8391 106.35 107.06
###16.12729 -3.863113 103.8631 ###11.54465 -7.291559 107.2916
###19.98634 -3.126591 103.1266 dimensions ###17.09062 -7.056377 107.0564 dimensions
###22.21859 -2.512588 102.5126 2.0 x-section area 0.3 d mean ###21.9781 -5.641773 105.6418 2.0 x-section area 0.4 d mean
###25.28428 -2.417518 102.4175 6.2 width 6.4 wet P ###22.93059 -5.677179 105.6772 4.7 width 5.0 wet P
###28.41638 -3.271587 103.2716 0.5 d max 0.3 hyd radi ###25.73133 -7.134241 107.1342 0.7 d max 0.4 hyd radi
###34.96921 -3.583582 103.5836 0.9 bank ht 19.2 w/d ratio ###30.79654 -7.775702 107.7757 1.4 bank ht 11.2 w/d ratio
###40.87922 -4.144088 104.1441 11.0 W flood prone area 1.8 ent ratio ####N/A 8.0 W flood prone area 1.7 ent ratio
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A hydraulics ####N/A hydraulics
####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
102
102.5
103
103.5
104
104.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 7 -XS 12 Riffle ---
105.5
106
106.5
107
107.5
108
108.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 7 -XS 17 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 7 - XS 20 section:Heron UT 7 - XS 24
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 7 - XS 20 description:Heron UT 7 - XS 24
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -10.7622 110.7622 -8.3 -8.84 9.0 ###0 -13.25754 113.2575 -11.48 -12.11 10.0
###8.065011 -10.3768 110.3768 108.3 108.84 ###9.864924 -12.96695 112.9669 111.48 112.11
###10.94477 -10.02548 110.0255 ###15.12648 -12.77942 112.7794
###14.59385 -9.271015 109.271 dimensions ###20.32538 -12.20463 112.2046 dimensions
###17.52783 -7.667701 107.6677 2.0 x-section area 0.4 d mean ###23.38181 -10.91072 110.9107 2.0 x-section area 0.4 d mean
###20.19874 -7.919425 107.9194 5.1 width 5.3 wet P ###24.7345 -10.75463 110.7546 4.7 width 4.9 wet P
###23.33275 -8.842173 108.8422 0.6 d max 0.4 hyd radi ###25.85328 -11.17708 111.1771 0.7 d max 0.4 hyd radi
###26.82446 -9.361239 109.3612 1.2 bank ht 13.3 w/d ratio ###28.5445 -12.10904 112.109 1.4 bank ht 11.2 w/d ratio
###31.99289 -9.890877 109.8909 9.0 W flood prone area 1.8 ent ratio ###32.36256 -12.28898 112.289 10.0 W flood prone area 2.1 ent ratio
###37.52137 -10.48745 110.4874 ###36.82847 -12.57291 112.5729
####N/A hydraulics ###41.8736 -12.7895 112.7895 hydraulics
####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
107.5
108
108.5
109
109.5
110
110.5
111
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 7 -XS 20 Riffle ---
110.5
111
111.5
112
112.5
113
113.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 7 -XS 24 Riffle ---
Cross Section
section:Heron UT 7 - XS 26
Riffle
---
---
description:Heron UT 7 - XS 26
height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -15.28737 115.2874 -12.67 -14.43 7.0
###2.765166 -14.79357 114.7936 112.67 114.43
###6.075137 -13.64934 113.6493
###8.153354 -13.06612 113.0661 dimensions
###8.872197 -12.02397 112.024 2.0 x-section area 0.5 d mean
###9.932695 -11.97454 111.9745 4.1 width 4.5 wet P
###10.97186 -12.06528 112.0653 0.7 d max 0.4 hyd radi
###11.73865 -12.38588 112.3859 2.5 bank ht 8.4 w/d ratio
###14.16051 -13.29205 113.2921 7.0 W flood prone area 1.7 ent ratio
###15.9442 -14.43332 114.4333
###22.09039 -14.50346 114.5035 hydraulics
###27.77384 -14.588 114.588 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
###32.04153 -14.64375 114.6437 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
###38.55112 -14.94434 114.9443 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A
####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A
111.5
112
112.5
113
113.5
114
114.5
115
115.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 7 -XS 26 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 8 - XS 1 section:Heron UT 8 - XS 3
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 8 - XS 1 description:Heron UT 8 - XS 3
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 -1.117236 101.1172 1.2 -0.35 5.0 ###0 0.419896 99.5801 1.62 1.34 30.0
###8.275911 -0.216394 100.2164 98.8 100.35 ###4.113782 0.670189 99.32981 98.38 98.66
###12.15419 0.035229 99.96477 ###6.947179 0.944041 99.05596
###14.25501 0.193747 99.80625 dimensions ###8.994383 1.215496 98.7845 dimensions
###17.20332 0.072038 99.92796 2.5 x-section area 0.5 d mean ###13.97982 1.599571 98.40043 2.5 x-section area 0.4 d mean
###20.06543 -0.176183 100.1762 4.5 width 5.3 wet P ###17.04856 1.600382 98.39962 6.1 width 6.3 wet P
###24.16952 -0.455964 100.456 0.6 d max 0.5 hyd radi ###22.87377 1.361008 98.63899 0.7 d max 0.4 hyd radi
###29.88498 -0.3465 100.3465 2.2 bank ht 8.3 w/d ratio ###31.64206 1.594101 98.4059 1.0 bank ht 15.0 w/d ratio
###35.15644 0.044835 99.95517 5.0 W flood prone area 1.1 ent ratio ###36.4029 1.443296 98.5567 30.0 W flood prone area 4.9 ent ratio
###40.82853 -0.146373 100.1464 ###40.96194 1.313445 98.68656
###46.88908 -0.051993 100.052 hydraulics ###47.34645 1.340018 98.65998 hydraulics
###50.10052 -0.147639 100.1476 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)###50.75908 1.595763 98.40424 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
###52.96448 -0.57291 100.5729 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)###52.46533 2.046049 97.95395 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
###55.26177 -0.352528 100.3525 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)###53.52631 2.316586 97.68341 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
###56.09861 1.720733 98.27927 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)###56.03851 1.998953 98.00105 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
###57.96073 1.788399 98.2116 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)###58.28549 1.044607 98.95539 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
###60.05384 1.841078 98.15892 0.00 Froude number ###60.12967 0.95043 99.04957 0.00 Froude number
###61.82056 -1.152496 101.1525 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
###65.13363 -1.907464 101.9075 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
102
102.5
40 45 50 55 60 65 70Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 8 -XS 1 Riffle ---
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 8 -XS 3 Riffle ---
Cross Section Cross Section
section:Heron UT 8 - XS 7 section:Heron UT 8 - XS 9
Riffle Riffle
------
------
description:Heron UT 8 - XS 7 description:Heron UT 8 - XS 9
height of instrument (ft):100.00 height of instrument (ft):100.00
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"notes pt.(ft)(ft)elevation bankfull top of bank (ft)slope (%)"n"
###0 2.859724 97.14028 4.9 4.25 18.0 ###0 5.44624 94.55376 7.71 6.14 7.0
###3.995977 3.153086 96.84691 95.1 95.75 ###8.235645 5.773291 94.22671 92.29 93.86
###9.426356 3.457071 96.54293 ###18.20695 6.285572 93.71443
###14.37777 3.87241 96.12759 dimensions ###25.20287 6.248966 93.75103 dimensions
###20.32053 4.194979 95.80502 2.5 x-section area 0.4 d mean ###31.50498 6.158461 93.84154 2.5 x-section area 0.6 d mean
###25.00651 4.24882 95.75118 5.6 width 5.9 wet P ###36.34834 6.083236 93.91676 4.2 width 4.7 wet P
###27.68249 4.942054 95.05795 0.9 d max 0.4 hyd radi ###40.00856 6.136026 93.86397 1.0 d max 0.5 hyd radi
###30.17905 5.472811 94.52719 1.5 bank ht 12.6 w/d ratio ###44.70053 8.669149 91.33085 2.5 bank ht 6.8 w/d ratio
###31.6015 5.790353 94.20965 18.0 W flood prone area 3.2 ent ratio ###46.29624 8.486908 91.51309 7.0 W flood prone area 1.7 ent ratio
###34.06269 4.35529 95.64471 ###49.28275 5.600659 94.39934
###35.78611 3.693789 96.30621 hydraulics ####N/A hydraulics
###41.42228 3.08775 96.91225 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.0 velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)####N/A 0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)####N/A 0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)####N/A 0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)####N/A 0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
####N/A 0.00 Froude number ####N/A 0.00 Froude number
####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*####N/A 0.0 friction factor u/u*
####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)####N/A 0.0 threshold grain size (mm)
####N/A ####N/A
####N/A check from channel material ####N/A check from channel material
####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)####N/A 0 measured D84 (mm)
####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor ####N/A 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material ####N/A 0.000 Manning's n from channel material
####N/A ####N/A
94
94.5
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 8 -XS 7 Riffle ---
91
91.5
92
92.5
93
93.5
94
94.5
95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Heron UT 8 -XS 9 Riffle ---
Station Bank BEHI NBS Erosion Rate Length Bank Height Eronsion
1 85 left low low 0 85 2 0.0
2 195 left high low 0.1 110 1.75 19.3
3 225 left low low 0 30 1.5 0.0
4 520 left high low 0.1 295 3.9 115.1
5 605 left low low 0 85 1.5 0.0
6 655 left high low 0.1 50 2.5 12.5
7 1015 left low low 0 360 1.5 0.0
8 1369 left high low 0.1 354 2.5 88.5
9 0.0
10 85 right low low 0 85 2 0.0
11 210 right high low 0.1 125 1.75 21.9
12 510 right high low 0.1 300 3.9 117.0
13 580 right low low 0 70 1.5 0.0
14 655 right high low 0.1 75 2.5 18.8
15 1015 right low low 0 360 1.5 0.0
16 1369 right high low 0.1 354 2.5 88.5
17 0.0
18 0.0
19 0.0
20 0.0
21 0.0
22
23
24
481.4
17.8
23.2
0.01
Stream UT 1
Site Heron  Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Observers Grant and Kenan
Bank Length 2738
Date 5‐Dec‐16
Sum eronsion sub‐totals for each BEHI/NBS Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
Total Eronsion (Tons/yr/ft)
Station Bank BEHI NBS Erosion Rate Length Bank Height Eronsion
1 45 left high low 0.1 45 1.5 6.8
2 95 left low low 0 50 1 0.0
3 115 left high low 0.1 20 1.5 3.0
4 145 left low low 0 30 1 0.0
5 190 left high low 0.1 45 1.5 6.8
6 380 left low low 0 190 1 0.0
7 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.0
10 60 right high low 0.1 60 1.5 9.0
11 90 right low low 0 30 1.5 0.0
12 120 right high low 0.1 30 1.5 4.5
13 155 right low low 0 35 1.5 0.0
14 185 right high low 0.1 30 1.5 4.5
15 375 right low low 0 190 1.5 0.0
16 0.0
17 0.0
18 0.0
19 0.0
20 0.0
21 0.0
22
23
24
34.5
1.3
1.7
0.00
Site Heron  Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream UT 2 Bank Length 755
Observers Grant and Kenan Date 5‐Dec‐16
Sum eronsion sub‐totals for each BEHI/NBS Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27 Total Erosion (yd/yr)
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3 Total Erosion (tons/yr)
Erosion per unit length Total Eronsion (Tons/yr/ft)
Station Bank BEHI NBS Erosion Rate Length Bank Height Eronsion
1 263 left very high low 0.15 263 2.9 114.4
2 451 left high low 0.1 188 1.4 26.3
3 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.0
10 263 right very high low 0.15 263 2.9 114.4
11 451 right high low 0.1 188 1.4 26.3
12 0.0
13 0.0
14 0.0
15 0.0
16 0.0
17 0.0
18 0.0
19 0.0
20 0.0
21 0.0
22
23
24
281.5
10.4
13.6
0.02
Site Heron  Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream UT 3 Bank Length 902
Observers Grant and Kenan Date 5‐Dec‐16
Sum eronsion sub‐totals for each BEHI/NBS Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27 Total Erosion (yd/yr)
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3 Total Erosion (tons/yr)
Erosion per unit length Total Eronsion (Tons/yr/ft)
Station Bank BEHI NBS Erosion Rate Length Bank Height Eronsion
1 75 left low low 0 75 0.7 0.0
2 150 left high low 0.1 75 1.3 9.8
3 195 left low low 0 45 0.7 0.0
4 305 left high low 0.1 110 2.7 29.7
5 416 left low low 0 111 1.2 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.0
10 75 right low low 0 75 0.7 0.0
11 150 right high low 0.1 75 1.3 9.8
12 195 right low low 0 45 0.7 0.0
13 305 right high low 0.1 110 2.7 29.7
14 416 right low low 0 111 1.2 0.0
15 0.0
16 0.0
17 0.0
18 0.0
19 0.0
20 0.0
21 0.0
22
23
24
78.9
2.9
3.8
0.00
Site Heron  Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream UT 4 Bank Length 832
Observers Grant and Kenan Date 5‐Dec‐16
Sum eronsion sub‐totals for each BEHI/NBS Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27 Total Erosion (yd/yr)
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3 Total Erosion (tons/yr)
Erosion per unit length Total Eronsion (Tons/yr/ft)
Station Bank BEHI NBS Erosion Rate Length Bank Height Eronsion
1 323 left moderate low 0.02 323 1.5 9.7
2 646 left low low 0 323 1 0.0
3 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.0
10 323 right moderate low 0.02 323 1.5 9.7
11 646 right low low 0 323 1 0.0
12 0.0
13 0.0
14 0.0
15 0.0
16 0.0
17 0.0
18 0.0
19 0.0
20 0.0
21 0.0
22
23
24
19.4
0.7
0.9
0.00
Site Heron  Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream UT 5 Bank Length 1292
Observers Grant and Kenan Date 5‐Dec‐16
Sum eronsion sub‐totals for each BEHI/NBS Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27 Total Erosion (yd/yr)
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3 Total Erosion (tons/yr)
Erosion per unit length Total Eronsion (Tons/yr/ft)
Station Bank BEHI NBS Erosion Rate Length Bank Height Eronsion
1 35 left high low 0.1 35 1.2 4.2
2 50 left low low 0 15 0.9 0.0
3 60 left high low 0.1 10 1.3 1.3
4 140 left low low 0 80 1.2 0.0
5 185 left high low 0.1 45 2.9 13.1
6 270 left high low 0.1 85 1.6 13.6
7 340 left high low 0.1 70 3 21.0
8 495 left low low 0 155 0.5 0.0
9 545 left high low 0.1 50 2.5 12.5
10 570 left low low 0 25 1 0.0
11 730 left high low 0.1 160 4 64.0
12 0.0
13 12 right low low 0 12 1.2 0.0
14 70 right high low 0.1 58 1.2 7.0
15 145 right low low 0 75 1 0.0
16 195 right high low 0.1 50 2.9 14.5
17 280 right high low 0.1 85 1.6 13.6
18 415 right high low 0.1 135 2.7 36.5
19 485 right low low 0 70 0.5 0.0
20 510 right high low 0.1 25 3.5 8.8
21 560 right low low 0 50 1 0.0
22 720 right high low 0.1 160 4 64.0
23
24
273.9
10.1
13.2
0.01
Site Heron  Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream UT 6 Bank Length 1450
Observers Grant and Kenan Date 5‐Dec‐16
Sum eronsion sub‐totals for each BEHI/NBS Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27 Total Erosion (yd/yr)
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3 Total Erosion (tons/yr)
Erosion per unit length Total Eronsion (Tons/yr/ft)
Station Bank BEHI NBS Erosion Rate Length Bank Height Eronsion
1 120 left low low 0 120 0.4 0.0
2 427 left moderate low 0.02 307 1.3 8.0
3 488 left low low 0 61 1.3 0.0
4 776 left moderate low 0.02 288 1.3 7.5
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.0
10 0.0
11 0.0
12 0.0
13 125 right low low 0 125 0.4 0.0
14 432 right moderate low 0.02 307 1.3 8.0
15 493 right low low 0 61 1.3 0.0
16 781 right moderate low 0.02 288 1.3 7.5
17 0.0
18 0.0
19 0.0
20 0.0
21 0.0
22 0.0
23
24
30.9
1.1
1.5
0.00
Site Heron  Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream UT 7 Bank Length 1557
Observers Grant and Kenan Date 5‐Dec‐16
Sum eronsion sub‐totals for each BEHI/NBS Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27 Total Erosion (yd/yr)
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3 Total Erosion (tons/yr)
Erosion per unit length Total Eronsion (Tons/yr/ft)
Station Bank BEHI NBS Erosion Rate Length Bank Height Eronsion
1 60 left high low 0.1 60 1.8 10.8
2 220 left low low 0 160 0.5 0.0
3 420 left very high low 0.15 200 2.8 84.0
4 744 left moderate low 0.02 324 3 19.4
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.0
10 0.0
11 0.0
12 0.0
13 70 right moderate low 0.02 70 1.8 2.5
14 210 right low low 0 140 0.8 0.0
15 425 right high low 0.1 215 2.8 60.2
16 749 right moderate low 0.02 324 3 19.4
17 0.0
18 0.0
19 0.0
20 0.0
21 0.0
22 0.0
23
24
196.4
7.3
9.5
0.01
Site Heron  Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream UT 8 Bank Length 1493
Observers Grant and Kenan Date 5‐Dec‐16
Sum eronsion sub‐totals for each BEHI/NBS Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27 Total Erosion (yd/yr)
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3 Total Erosion (tons/yr)
Erosion per unit length Total Eronsion (Tons/yr/ft)
BEHI/NBS Summary
Erosion Rate
Stream Reach (tons/year)
UT 1 23.2
UT 2 1.7
UT 3 13.6
UT 4 3.8
UT 5 0.9
UT 6 13.2
UT 7 1.5
UT 8 9.5
Total 67.3
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Heron Site (UT 1 lower) Date of Assessment 12/5/16
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization Axiom Environmental

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Heron Site (UT 1 upper) Date of Assessment 12/5/16
Stream Category Pa1 Assessor Name/Organization Axiom Environmental

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Heron Site (UT 4) Date of Assessment 12/5/16
Stream Category Pa1 Assessor Name/Organization Axiom Environmental

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Heron Site (UT 5) Date of Assessment 12/5/16
Stream Category Pa1 Assessor Name/Organization Axiom Environmental

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA NA
Overall

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Heron Site (UT 6) Date of Assessment 12/5/16
Stream Category Pa1 Assessor Name/Organization Axiom Environmental

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Heron Site (UT 7) Date of Assessment 12/5/16
Stream Category Pa1 Assessor Name/Organization Axiom Environmental

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA NA
Overall

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Heron Site (UT 8) Date of Assessment 12/5/16
Stream Category Pa1 Assessor Name/Organization Axiom Environmental

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name K1
Jernigan/AxiomHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
12/5/2016
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
HIGH
YES
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NA
HIGH
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name K2
Jernigan/AxiomHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
12/5/2016
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
YES
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
LOW
NA
HIGH
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name K3
Jernigan/AxiomHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
12/5/2016
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
HIGH
YES
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC Division of Water Quality —Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins V. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 12 S I(,
Projectisite. _,,,,, �_ 1
Latitude:
Evaluator lir..,,
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circ
Other
Steam Isatteast wismmenr
ffa 19 oi-pemimal A>30- O,
Ephemeral Intarmitten erenni
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1
AbsentRakModd
2
3
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
032.
3
14 Leaflitter
15 7
Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
03
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0 0
1
3 In -channel structure' ex. rife -pool, Step -pool.
n In ool s uenw4.
0
0 0.
1
3
Panicle size of stream substrate
03
Yes 3
1.5
24, Amphibians 0
5. Acave/relict floodplain
03
1.5
25 Algae
0.5
1
6 Depositional bars or benches
03
FACW=0.75:
08L=1.5 Other =0
'perennial streams may also be idenlifled using ower methods. See p. 35 of manual.
7 Recent alluvial deposits
03
Notes )',.. rl. .. 6r°t + ,,, fy.. 1.� f
8 Headwis
03
9. Grade wntrol
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1.5
11 Sewnd or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
' ardflrial ditches are not rated: see disrvsslans In manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
3
13 Iron oxldinng bacteria
0 1
2
3
14 Leaflitter
15 7
0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0 0
1
15
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.
1
1.5
17 Sol) -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
1.5
C. Biolo9v (Subtotal = 9.5 )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed A
2
1
0
19. Roofed upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Maaobenthos (note diversity and abimance) 0
1
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks 1 -
1
2
3
22 Fish 0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24, Amphibians 0
EGA,
1
1.5
25 Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26 Welland plants In streambed
FACW=0.75:
08L=1.5 Other =0
'perennial streams may also be idenlifled using ower methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes )',.. rl. .. 6r°t + ,,, fy.. 1.� f
Sketch
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 UT Z
Date: n.7y
Pro)ectlSite: * ✓1 5 i
Latitude:
Evaluator. A X
county: Al
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Soeem is at lead intermittent LZ- '
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e9 0uad Name:
Ara 19 orgammmad a/ 30'
0.5
1
A. Geomorphology ( Subtotal= 1L )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
1
In
3. -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
n le- ooh sequence
0
1
�q2
CD
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
s -
2
3
5. Activefrelict floodplain
0
1
25Algae0.5
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Semnd or greater order channel
=
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
R Hvdrnloov /RuMntM = 4 • 5 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
flirl, 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
IS
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
s -
1.5
C Riolnov Muhtntal = Z 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
ED
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and! abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Moilusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25Algae0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=0.75:
OBL=1.5 Other =0
'perennial streams may also be dentified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

LAI3
NC Division of Water Quality—Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DNi'O Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Dale: -
ProJeeuske' yr,n 'XI
Latitude:
Evaluator: 1 �,,-�
County: �
Longitude:
Total Points: „
7
Determination (circle one)
Other
Srmemisetm imer
et 19 ars 0- 3
nnial da 3p'
Ephemeral Intermittent Pial
Perennial
e.9 vaStream
od Name:
A, Geomor holo (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
j Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1.5
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In -channel sWcture'. exriffle-pool. step -pool,
ri ool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Panicle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activeirefia floodplain
0
1
25 Algae
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
26 Wetland plants in streambed
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headouts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control0
0.5
1
1 .5
0 valley
0
0.5
t
1.5
1Natural
1 Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
anifidal tllldres are not rated, see diswssions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = LS )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0 0
2
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1
1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table9
No= 0
Yes fJ3
1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ',,;- )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abuni 0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish A
05
1
1.5
23 Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24 Amphibians 0
Q5
1
1.5
25 Algae
0.5
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=0.75',
OBL=15 Other =0
'petermal streams may also be idenMetl using other methods. See o 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch.
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1s/5 / 16
Project/Site' ro✓, UT t�
Latitude:
Evaluator:QKn,
County: ��.rLLns
Longitude:
Tota( Points:
Scream is er leaarmremr.
Stream Determination
Other
?z /9 or rermiel17z X. 33'S
Ephemeral 1ntemnRte(e Prenni e
ag Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = q I
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 ° Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thafweg
0
1
0.5
3
3 In -channel shuduree. ex riffle -pool, step�peol,
ri Ie- ool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Panicle size of stream substrate
0
7
2
1.5
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or trenches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
6. Headmas
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11 Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
artindal ditches are not rated: see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 9,5 )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
CD
0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17 Soil based evidence of high water table?
1
No - 0
Yes t 3
0.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = t_)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed w
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatc Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish 0
0.5
1
1S
23 Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Weiland plants In streambed
FACW = 0 75,
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be IdentflEd using other methods. See p. 35 bfmanual.
Notes.
Sketch
41

ut7 '5 -
NC
NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Versinn 4.11
Date: 1115116
ProjectIsiteJf$ �brr
Latitude:
Evaluator: �erm cA
County: Ah,,,,,,«
Longitude:
Total Points:
1
2
Saf_mam is aNeastlmemriaenf Z$ S
Stream Oeone)l
Ephemarste
011ier
19 a mnmalH>30'
rmlcla
ntede Perennia
e.9 Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= N l
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Congnudy of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuos of channel along tri
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
2
3
3. Inthannel shuctureex raffle -pool, step -pool.
n le- oal s n
uece
0
O
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Active/rehat floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headmts
0
1
z
3
9. Grade wntrol
0
05
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
N .4,
0
Yes=3
Sketch:
-adifidal ditches are not raled, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= 'i
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
3
13 Iron oxidinng bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf lifter
1.V
20. Macrobenthos(note diwmly and aburdanw)
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
1
15
16. Organic debns lines or piles
0 0.5
1
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
1
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ( )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3)
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos(note diwmly and aburdanw)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0)
0.5
1
15
25. Algae
0=
0.5
1
15
26. Welland plants in streambed
FACW=0, 75.
081 1.5 Other =0
'perennial streams may also be Menlified using other methods, see p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

LAI L,
NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream identifirntinn Fnrm Verainn d t t
Date: IZ ri 1 b
Projecdsite: gor- un
Latitude:
Evaluator: Jvan
County: Ahm..n
Longitude:
0
ce
2
Total Points:
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
a o
Stream is at kasl interm4fem
2J S
Stream Da circle one)
Other
Aa ¢nmol O>_ 30'
Epheman Intermin¢ Perennial
eg. CadoNene:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = IZ,S
Absent
Weak
Mod rate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In -channel sWcture'. ex rifflMl, step -pool.
f of sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle sae of stream substrate
0
No - 0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
D
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
05
-2-3
1.5
6. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
05
1S
10. Natural vauey
0
0.5
1
1. Sacend erg.order channel
No
Yes = 3
Sketch.
-enmclal arches are non rates: see mawsslons In manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 7:�- )
12 Presence of Bawflow
0
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bactena
0
1
2 3
14. Leaf liner
1.5
1
0. 0
15. Sediment on plants or debns
0
5
1 5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No - 0
Yes;U
Bioloov (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
21
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Ma=benthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
05
1
15
25. Algae
0
05
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'paternial streams may also be idemified using other methods. See P. 35 of manual.
Notes: Z o,.+�:' i I -Jl
Sketch.
41

,,it } of 51rrotlq
NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC nwfl Cfeon... tduntiCnnNnn 17n.... t)efa:.... A 11 ..
Date: VL15 l�
ProjactlSite: 4rmn lir-
Latitude:
Evaluator: Tunen
County: A�..a,rt
Longitude:
Total Points:
1
2
Srmam is at least mfermmenr ��.5
Ination (cimle one)
Other
Be fear rennialdt30'
phemenl I ermittent Perennial
e..Ouetl Neme:
9
A, Geomo holo (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
lVioderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalwag
0
t
11.5
0.5.,
3
3 In -channel stmdureexdf6e-pool. step -pool,
ri of sequence
02
(Y
1
3
4. Parade sue of stream substrate
0
7
1
3
5. Acavelrelid floodplain
0
1
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
'1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade wntrol
0
0.5
1
1.5
10 Natural valley
0
0.5
1 CV 1
1.5
11 Second or greater order channel
No
0>
Yes = 3
Sketch.
R Hvelminnv fRuhtntAl
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 EU1
2
3
13 Imn oxidizing bacteria
w 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
11.5
0.5.,
1
15
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
1
18 Fibrous roots In streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Mambenthos (note dwrslly and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22, Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75,
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods- See p. 35 of manual.
Notes.
Sketch.
41
�2�9y.5

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and uT%
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identiflratinn Fnrm Version d 11
Date: IZ 5 IY
Project/Site: LLyo.n f -It
Latitude:
Evaluator: jUr. .n
County: F��.warr s.
Longitude:
Total Points:
1
2
Streamrsatfeastlhmmiaent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
•5
da 19a mnmal ilz 3tl'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology ( Subtotal = 1 L.S I
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1.5
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In -channel structure: exriffle-pool, step -pool,
n ool s uence
0l-1
of
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Achvelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
(1p
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headouts
1
2
3
9. Grace control
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11 Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
-anldnal dadnes are not retell: see dhdussions In manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = S 1
12 Presence of Basel
0
1
2
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0)
1
3
14. Leaf lifter
1.5
1
0. 0
15. Sediment on plants or debns
0
0.5
1 1.5
16. Organic debns lines or piles
0
0
1 1.5
17. Soibbased evidence of high water table?
0.5
No = 0
Yes n3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (nate divemlty and abuMarwe) 0
CV
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 01
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
15
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Welland plants In streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other= 0
'Perennial stream may also be identlfled using Other methods. Sae p. 35 of manual.
Notes: AI,& r s
Sketch'.
41

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix C
Flood Frequency Analysis Data
Cedarock Reference ReachReturn Interval (years)Discharge (cfs)1.3271.532243.6581.4101152516950217100272200337500438Note: Bold values are interpolated.Causey Farm Reference ReachReturn Interval (years)Discharge (cfs)1.3531.565294.35171102382534250435100541200663500852Reference ReachesFlood Frequency Analaysis-Regional Regression Equation (USGS 2004)0501001502002503003504004505000 100 200 300 400 500Return Interval (years)Discharge (cfs)Cedarock Reference Reach01002003004005006007008009000 100 200 300 400 500Return Interval (years)Discharge (cfs)Causey Farm Reference Reach

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix D
Jurisdictional Determination Info

6$:
86$50<&25362)(1*,1((56
:,/0,1*721',675,&7

$FWLRQ,G6$:&RXQW\$ODPDQFH86*64XDG1&6LON+RSH

127,),&$7,212)-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21

3URSHUW\2ZQHU1&'(4'06
$WWQ7LP%DXPJDUWQHU
$GGUHVV0DLO6HUYLFH&HQWHU
 5DOHLJK1& 

6L]HDFUHVa 1HDUHVW7RZQ6QRZ&DPS
1HDUHVW:DWHUZD\6RXWK)RUN&DQH&UHHN 5LYHU%DVLQ&DSH)HDU
86*6+8& &RRUGLQDWHV1:
/RFDWLRQGHVFULSWLRQ7KHSURMHFWDUHDLVORFDWHGRQWKHHDVWVLGHRI%HWKHO6RXWK)RUN5RDGHDVWRILWVLQWHUVHFWLRQZLWK&ODUN
5RDGRQERWKVLGHRI6RXWK)RUN&DQH&UHHNQHDU6QRZ&DPS$ODPDQFH&RXQW\1RUWK&DUROLQD7KH3URMHFW$UHDLV
VKRZQDVWKH³(DVHPHQW´RQWKHDWWDFKHG)LJXUHWLWOHG³-XULVGLFWLRQDO$UHDV´

,QGLFDWH:KLFKRIWKH)ROORZLQJ$SSO\
$.PreliminaryDetermination

7KHUHDSSHDUWREHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDWKDWPD\EHVXEMHFWWR6HFWLRQRI
WKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW&:$86&†DQGRU6HFWLRQRIWKH5LYHUVDQG+DUERUV$FW5+$86&†7KH
ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVKDYHEHHQGHOLQHDWHGDQGWKHGHOLQHDWLRQKDVEHHQYHULILHGE\WKH&RUSVWREHVXIILFLHQWO\
DFFXUDWHDQGUHOLDEOH7KHDSSUR[LPDWHERXQGDULHVRIWKHVHZDWHUVDUHVKRZQRQWKHHQFORVHGGHOLQHDWLRQPDSGDWHG
2FWREHU7KHUHIRUHWKLVSUHOLPLQDU\MXULVGLFWLRQGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHXVHGLQWKHSHUPLWHYDOXDWLRQSURFHVV
LQFOXGLQJGHWHUPLQLQJFRPSHQVDWRU\PLWLJDWLRQ)RUSXUSRVHVRIFRPSXWDWLRQRILPSDFWVFRPSHQVDWRU\PLWLJDWLRQ
UHTXLUHPHQWVDQGRWKHUUHVRXUFHSURWHFWLRQPHDVXUHVDSHUPLWGHFLVLRQPDGHRQWKHEDVLVRIDSUHOLPLQDU\-'ZLOOWUHDW
DOOZDWHUVDQGZHWODQGVWKDWZRXOGEHDIIHFWHGLQDQ\ZD\E\WKHSHUPLWWHGDFWLYLW\RQWKHVLWHDVLIWKH\DUHMXULVGLFWLRQDO
ZDWHUVRIWKH867KLVSUHOLPLQDU\GHWHUPLQDWLRQLVQRWDQDSSHDODEOHDFWLRQXQGHUWKH5HJXODWRU\3URJUDP
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO3URFHVV5HIHUHQFH&)53DUW+RZHYHU\RXPD\UHTXHVWDQDSSURYHG-'ZKLFKLVDQ
DSSHDODEOHDFWLRQE\FRQWDFWLQJWKH&RUSVGLVWULFWIRUIXUWKHULQVWUXFWLRQ

7KHUHDSSHDUWREHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\WKDWPD\EHVXEMHFWWR6HFWLRQRI
WKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW&:$86&†DQGRU6HFWLRQRIWKH5LYHUVDQG+DUERUV$FW5+$86&†+RZHYHU
VLQFHWKHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVKDYHQRWEHHQSURSHUO\GHOLQHDWHGWKLVSUHOLPLQDU\MXULVGLFWLRQGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\QRWEH
XVHGLQWKHSHUPLWHYDOXDWLRQSURFHVV:LWKRXWDYHULILHGZHWODQGGHOLQHDWLRQWKLVSUHOLPLQDU\GHWHUPLQDWLRQLVPHUHO\DQ
HIIHFWLYHSUHVXPSWLRQRI&:$5+$MXULVGLFWLRQRYHUDOORIWKHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVDWWKHSURMHFWDUHDZKLFKLVQRW
VXIILFLHQWO\DFFXUDWHDQGUHOLDEOHWRVXSSRUWDQHQIRUFHDEOHSHUPLWGHFLVLRQ:HUHFRPPHQGWKDW\RXKDYHWKHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJ
ZHWODQGVRQ\RXUSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\GHOLQHDWHG$VWKH&RUSVPD\QRWEHDEOHWRDFFRPSOLVKWKLVZHWODQGGHOLQHDWLRQLQD
WLPHO\PDQQHU\RXPD\ZLVKWRREWDLQDFRQVXOWDQWWRFRQGXFWDGHOLQHDWLRQWKDWFDQEHYHULILHGE\WKH&RUSV
%$SSURYHG'HWHUPLQDWLRQ

7KHUHDUH1DYLJDEOH:DWHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVZLWKLQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\VXEMHFWWRWKHSHUPLW
UHTXLUHPHQWVRI6HFWLRQRIWKH5LYHUVDQG+DUERUV$FW5+$86&†DQG6HFWLRQRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW
&:$86&†8QOHVVWKHUHLVDFKDQJHLQODZRURXUSXEOLVKHGUHJXODWLRQVWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRU
DSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUVIURPWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLILFDWLRQ

7KHUHDUHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\VXEMHFWWRWKHSHUPLWUHTXLUHPHQWVRI6HFWLRQ
RIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW&:$86&†8QOHVVWKHUHLVDFKDQJHLQWKHODZRURXUSXEOLVKHGUHJXODWLRQVWKLV
GHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRUDSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUVIURPWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLILFDWLRQ

:HUHFRPPHQG\RXKDYHWKHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQ\RXUSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\GHOLQHDWHG$VWKH&RUSVPD\QRWEH
DEOHWRDFFRPSOLVKWKLVZHWODQGGHOLQHDWLRQLQDWLPHO\PDQQHU\RXPD\ZLVKWRREWDLQDFRQVXOWDQWWRFRQGXFWDGHOLQHDWLRQWKDW
FDQEHYHULILHGE\WKH&RUSV

7KHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQ\RXUSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\KDYHEHHQGHOLQHDWHGDQGWKHGHOLQHDWLRQKDVEHHQYHULILHGE\WKH
&RUSV7KHDSSUR[LPDWHERXQGDULHVRIWKHVHZDWHUVDUHVKRZQRQWKHHQFORVHGGHOLQHDWLRQPDSGDWHG0$3'$7(,I\RXZLVKWR
KDYHWKHGHOLQHDWLRQVXUYH\HGWKH&RUSVFDQUHYLHZDQGYHULI\WKHVXUYH\XSRQFRPSOHWLRQ2QFHYHULILHGWKLVVXUYH\ZLOO
6$:
SURYLGHDQDFFXUDWHGHSLFWLRQRIDOODUHDVVXEMHFWWR&:$DQGRU5+$MXULVGLFWLRQRQ\RXUSURSHUW\ZKLFKSURYLGHGWKHUHLVQR
FKDQJHLQWKHODZRURXUSXEOLVKHGUHJXODWLRQVPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRUDSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUV

7KHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVKDYHEHHQGHOLQHDWHGDQGVXUYH\HGDQGDUHDFFXUDWHO\GHSLFWHGRQWKHSODWVLJQHGE\WKH&RUSV
5HJXODWRU\2IILFLDOLGHQWLILHGEHORZRQ6859(<6,*1(''$7(8QOHVVWKHUHLVDFKDQJHLQWKHODZRURXUSXEOLVKHG
UHJXODWLRQVWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRUDSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUVIURPWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLILFDWLRQ

7KHUHDUHQRZDWHUVRIWKH86WRLQFOXGHZHWODQGVSUHVHQWRQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\ZKLFKDUHVXEMHFWWRWKH
SHUPLWUHTXLUHPHQWVRI6HFWLRQRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW86&8QOHVVWKHUHLVDFKDQJHLQWKHODZRURXUSXEOLVKHG
UHJXODWLRQVWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRUDSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUVIURPWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLILFDWLRQ

7KHSURSHUW\LVORFDWHGLQRQHRIWKH&RDVWDO&RXQWLHVVXEMHFWWRUHJXODWLRQXQGHUWKH&RDVWDO$UHD0DQDJHPHQW$FW&$0$
<RXVKRXOGFRQWDFWWKH'LYLVLRQRI&RDVWDO0DQDJHPHQWLQ0RUHKHDG&LW\1&DWWRGHWHUPLQHWKHLU
UHTXLUHPHQWV

3ODFHPHQWRIGUHGJHGRUILOOPDWHULDOZLWKLQZDWHUVRIWKH86LQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVZLWKRXWD'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH$UP\SHUPLWPD\
FRQVWLWXWHDYLRODWLRQRI6HFWLRQRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW86&†3ODFHPHQWRIGUHGJHGRUILOOPDWHULDOFRQVWUXFWLRQRU
SODFHPHQWRIVWUXFWXUHVRUZRUNZLWKLQQDYLJDEOHZDWHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVZLWKRXWD'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH$UP\SHUPLWPD\
FRQVWLWXWHDYLRODWLRQRI6HFWLRQVDQGRURIWKH5LYHUVDQG+DUERUV$FW86&†DQGRU,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQV
UHJDUGLQJWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQDQGRUWKH&RUSVUHJXODWRU\SURJUDPSOHDVHFRQWDFW'DYLG%DLOH\DW;RU
'DYLG(%DLOH\#XVDFHDUP\PLO

&%DVLV)RU'HWHUPLQDWLRQ6HHWKH3UHOLPLQDU\-XULVGLFWLRQDO'HWHUPLQDWLRQIRUPGDWHG
'5HPDUNV1RQH

($WWHQWLRQ86'$3URJUDP3DUWLFLSDQWV

7KLVGHOLQHDWLRQGHWHUPLQDWLRQKDVEHHQFRQGXFWHGWRLGHQWLI\WKHOLPLWVRI&RUSV¶&OHDQ:DWHU$FWMXULVGLFWLRQIRUWKHSDUWLFXODUVLWH
LGHQWLILHGLQWKLVUHTXHVW7KHGHOLQHDWLRQGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\QRWEHYDOLGIRUWKHZHWODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQSURYLVLRQVRIWKH)RRG6HFXULW\
$FWRI,I\RXRU\RXUWHQDQWDUH86'$3URJUDPSDUWLFLSDQWVRUDQWLFLSDWHSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQ86'$SURJUDPV\RXVKRXOGUHTXHVW
DFHUWLILHGZHWODQGGHWHUPLQDWLRQIURPWKHORFDORIILFHRIWKH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFHSULRUWRVWDUWLQJZRUN

)$SSHDOV,QIRUPDWLRQ7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQDSSOLHVRQO\WRDSSURYHGMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQVDVLQGLFDWHGLQ%
DERYH

7KLVFRUUHVSRQGHQFHFRQVWLWXWHVDQDSSURYHGMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQIRUWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGVLWH,I\RXREMHFWWRWKLV
GHWHUPLQDWLRQ\RXPD\UHTXHVWDQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHDSSHDOXQGHU&RUSVUHJXODWLRQVDW&)53DUW(QFORVHG\RXZLOOILQGD
1RWLILFDWLRQRI$SSHDO3URFHVV1$3IDFWVKHHWDQGUHTXHVWIRUDSSHDO5)$IRUP,I\RXUHTXHVWWRDSSHDOWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQ\RX
PXVWVXEPLWDFRPSOHWHG5)$IRUPWRWKHIROORZLQJDGGUHVV

 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV
 6RXWK$WODQWLF'LYLVLRQ
 $WWQ-DVRQ6WHHOH5HYLHZ2IILFHU
 )RUV\WK6WUHHW6:5RRP0
 $WODQWD*HRUJLD

,QRUGHUIRUDQ5)$WREHDFFHSWHGE\WKH&RUSVWKH&RUSVPXVWGHWHUPLQHWKDWLWLVFRPSOHWHWKDWLWPHHWVWKHFULWHULDIRUDSSHDO
XQGHU&)5SDUWDQGWKDWLWKDVEHHQUHFHLYHGE\WKH'LYLVLRQ2IILFHZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKH1$36KRXOG\RX
GHFLGHWRVXEPLWDQ5)$IRUPLWPXVWEHUHFHLYHGDWWKHDERYHDGGUHVVE\1RWDSSOLFDEOH

,WLVQRWQHFHVVDU\WRVXEPLWDQ5)$IRUPWRWKH'LYLVLRQ2IILFHLI\RXGRQRWREMHFWWRWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQLQWKLVFRUUHVSRQGHQFH




&RUSV5HJXODWRU\2IILFLDOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

'DWHRI-'([SLUDWLRQ'DWHRI-'1RWDSSOLFDEOH


7KH:LOPLQJWRQ'LVWULFWLVFRPPLWWHGWRSURYLGLQJWKHKLJKHVWOHYHORIVXSSRUWWRWKHSXEOLF7RKHOSXVHQVXUHZHFRQWLQXHWRGRVR
SOHDVHFRPSOHWHRXU&XVWRPHU6DWLVIDFWLRQ6XUYH\ORFDWHGRQOLQHDWKWWSFRUSVPDSXXVDFHDUP\PLOFPBDSH[I"S 

&RS\IXUQLVKHG
6XH+RPHZRRG1&'(4':5:+DQHV0LOO5G6XLWH:LQVWRQ6DOHP1&
Digitally signed by BAILEY.DAVID.E.1379283736
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USA, cn=BAILEY.DAVID.E.1379283736
Date: 2017.12.21 14:51:59 -05'00'
6$:
127,),&$7,212)$'0,1,675$7,9($33($/237,216$1'352&(66$1'
5(48(67)25$33($/
$SSOLFDQW1&'(4'06$WWQ7LP%DXPJDUWQHU)LOH1XPEHU6$:'DWH
$WWDFKHGLV 6HH6HFWLRQEHORZ
 ,1,7,$/352))(5('3(50,76WDQGDUG3HUPLWRU/HWWHURISHUPLVVLRQ $
 352))(5('3(50,76WDQGDUG3HUPLWRU/HWWHURISHUPLVVLRQ %
 3(50,7'(1,$/&
 $33529('-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21 '
 35(/,0,1$5<-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21 (
6(&7,21,7KHIROORZLQJLGHQWLILHV\RXUULJKWVDQGRSWLRQVUHJDUGLQJDQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHDSSHDORIWKHDERYHGHFLVLRQ
$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQPD\EHIRXQGDWRUKWWSZZZXVDFHDUP\PLO0LVVLRQV&LYLO:RUNV5HJXODWRU\3URJUDPDQG3HUPLWVDVS[
RUWKH&RUSVUHJXODWLRQVDW&)53DUW
$,1,7,$/352))(5('3(50,7<RXPD\DFFHSWRUREMHFWWRWKHSHUPLW
x$&&(37,I\RXUHFHLYHGD6WDQGDUG3HUPLW\RXPD\VLJQWKHSHUPLWGRFXPHQWDQGUHWXUQLWWRWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUIRUILQDO
DXWKRUL]DWLRQ,I\RXUHFHLYHGD/HWWHURI3HUPLVVLRQ/23\RXPD\DFFHSWWKH/23DQG\RXUZRUNLVDXWKRUL]HG<RXU
VLJQDWXUHRQWKH6WDQGDUG3HUPLWRUDFFHSWDQFHRIWKH/23PHDQVWKDW\RXDFFHSWWKHSHUPLWLQLWVHQWLUHW\DQGZDLYHDOO
ULJKWVWRDSSHDOWKHSHUPLWLQFOXGLQJLWVWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVDQGDSSURYHGMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH
SHUPLW
x2%-(&7,I\RXREMHFWWRWKHSHUPLW6WDQGDUGRU/23EHFDXVHRIFHUWDLQWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVWKHUHLQ\RXPD\UHTXHVW
WKDWWKHSHUPLWEHPRGLILHGDFFRUGLQJO\<RXPXVWFRPSOHWH6HFWLRQ,,RIWKLVIRUPDQGUHWXUQWKHIRUPWRWKHGLVWULFW
HQJLQHHU<RXUREMHFWLRQVPXVWEHUHFHLYHGE\WKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLFHRU\RXZLOO
IRUIHLW\RXUULJKWWRDSSHDOWKHSHUPLWLQWKHIXWXUH8SRQUHFHLSWRI\RXUOHWWHUWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUZLOOHYDOXDWH\RXU
REMHFWLRQVDQGPD\DPRGLI\WKHSHUPLWWRDGGUHVVDOORI\RXUFRQFHUQVEPRGLI\WKHSHUPLWWRDGGUHVVVRPHRI\RXU
REMHFWLRQVRUFQRWPRGLI\WKHSHUPLWKDYLQJGHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHSHUPLWVKRXOGEHLVVXHGDVSUHYLRXVO\ZULWWHQ$IWHU
HYDOXDWLQJ\RXUREMHFWLRQVWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUZLOOVHQG\RXDSURIIHUHGSHUPLWIRU\RXUUHFRQVLGHUDWLRQDVLQGLFDWHGLQ
6HFWLRQ%EHORZ
%352))(5('3(50,7<RXPD\DFFHSWRUDSSHDOWKHSHUPLW
x$&&(37,I\RXUHFHLYHGD6WDQGDUG3HUPLW\RXPD\VLJQWKHSHUPLWGRFXPHQWDQGUHWXUQLWWRWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUIRUILQDO
DXWKRUL]DWLRQ,I\RXUHFHLYHGD/HWWHURI3HUPLVVLRQ/23\RXPD\DFFHSWWKH/23DQG\RXUZRUNLVDXWKRUL]HG<RXU
VLJQDWXUHRQWKH6WDQGDUG3HUPLWRUDFFHSWDQFHRIWKH/23PHDQVWKDW\RXDFFHSWWKHSHUPLWLQLWVHQWLUHW\DQGZDLYHDOO
ULJKWVWRDSSHDOWKHSHUPLWLQFOXGLQJLWVWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVDQGDSSURYHGMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH
SHUPLW
x$33($/,I\RXFKRRVHWRGHFOLQHWKHSURIIHUHGSHUPLW6WDQGDUGRU/23EHFDXVHRIFHUWDLQWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVWKHUHLQ
\RXPD\DSSHDOWKHGHFOLQHGSHUPLWXQGHUWKH&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO3URFHVVE\FRPSOHWLQJ6HFWLRQ,,RI
WKLVIRUPDQGVHQGLQJWKHIRUPWRWKHGLYLVLRQHQJLQHHU7KLVIRUPPXVWEHUHFHLYHGE\WKHGLYLVLRQHQJLQHHUZLWKLQGD\V
RIWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLFH
&3(50,7'(1,$/<RXPD\DSSHDOWKHGHQLDORIDSHUPLWXQGHUWKH&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO3URFHVVE\
FRPSOHWLQJ6HFWLRQ,,RIWKLVIRUPDQGVHQGLQJWKHIRUPWRWKHGLYLVLRQHQJLQHHU7KLVIRUPPXVWEHUHFHLYHGE\WKHGLYLVLRQ
HQJLQHHUZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLFH
'$33529('-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21<RXPD\DFFHSWRUDSSHDOWKHDSSURYHG-'RUSURYLGHQHZ
LQIRUPDWLRQ
x$&&(37<RXGRQRWQHHGWRQRWLI\WKH&RUSVWRDFFHSWDQDSSURYHG-')DLOXUHWRQRWLI\WKH&RUSVZLWKLQGD\VRIWKH
GDWHRIWKLVQRWLFHPHDQVWKDW\RXDFFHSWWKHDSSURYHG-'LQLWVHQWLUHW\DQGZDLYHDOOULJKWVWRDSSHDOWKHDSSURYHG-'
x$33($/,I\RXGLVDJUHHZLWKWKHDSSURYHG-'\RXPD\DSSHDOWKHDSSURYHG-'XQGHUWKH&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO3URFHVVE\FRPSOHWLQJ6HFWLRQ,,RIWKLVIRUPDQGVHQGLQJWKHIRUPWRWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHU7KLVIRUP
PXVWEHUHFHLYHGE\WKHGLYLVLRQHQJLQHHUZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLFH
(35(/,0,1$5<-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21<RXGRQRWQHHGWRUHVSRQGWRWKH&RUSVUHJDUGLQJWKH
SUHOLPLQDU\-'7KH3UHOLPLQDU\-'LVQRWDSSHDODEOH,I\RXZLVK\RXPD\UHTXHVWDQDSSURYHG-'ZKLFKPD\EHDSSHDOHG
E\FRQWDFWLQJWKH&RUSVGLVWULFWIRUIXUWKHULQVWUXFWLRQ$OVR\RXPD\SURYLGHQHZLQIRUPDWLRQIRUIXUWKHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\WKH
&RUSVWRUHHYDOXDWHWKH-'
6$:

6(&7,21,,5(48(67)25$33($/RU2%-(&7,21672$1,1,7,$/352))(5('3(50,7
5($6216)25$33($/252%-(&7,216'HVFULEH\RXUUHDVRQVIRUDSSHDOLQJWKHGHFLVLRQRU\RXUREMHFWLRQVWRDQLQLWLDO
SURIIHUHGSHUPLWLQFOHDUFRQFLVHVWDWHPHQWV<RXPD\DWWDFKDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQWRWKLVIRUPWRFODULI\ZKHUH\RXUUHDVRQVRU
REMHFWLRQVDUHDGGUHVVHGLQWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUG





$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,217KHDSSHDOLVOLPLWHGWRDUHYLHZRIWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUGWKH&RUSVPHPRUDQGXPIRUWKH
UHFRUGRIWKHDSSHDOFRQIHUHQFHRUPHHWLQJDQGDQ\VXSSOHPHQWDOLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWWKHUHYLHZRIILFHUKDVGHWHUPLQHGLVQHHGHGWR
FODULI\WKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUG1HLWKHUWKHDSSHOODQWQRUWKH&RUSVPD\DGGQHZLQIRUPDWLRQRUDQDO\VHVWRWKHUHFRUG
+RZHYHU\RXPD\SURYLGHDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQWRFODULI\WKHORFDWLRQRILQIRUPDWLRQWKDWLVDOUHDG\LQWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYH
UHFRUG
32,172)&217$&7)2548(67,21625,1)250$7,21
,I\RXKDYHTXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKLVGHFLVLRQDQGRUWKH
DSSHDOSURFHVV\RXPD\FRQWDFW
'LVWULFW(QJLQHHU:LOPLQJWRQ5HJXODWRU\'LYLVLRQ
DWWQ'DYLG(%DLOH\
5DOHLJK5HJXODWRU\)LHOG2IILFH
+HULWDJH7UDGH'ULYH6XLWH
:DNH)RUHVW1RUWK&DUROLQD
,I\RXRQO\KDYHTXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKHDSSHDOSURFHVV\RXPD\
DOVRFRQWDFW
0U-DVRQ6WHHOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO5HYLHZ2IILFHU
&(6$'3'2
86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV6RXWK$WODQWLF'LYLVLRQ
)RUV\WK6WUHHW5RRP0
$WODQWD*HRUJLD
3KRQH
5,*+72)(175<<RXUVLJQDWXUHEHORZJUDQWVWKHULJKWRIHQWU\WR&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUVSHUVRQQHODQGDQ\JRYHUQPHQW
FRQVXOWDQWVWRFRQGXFWLQYHVWLJDWLRQVRIWKHSURMHFWVLWHGXULQJWKHFRXUVHRIWKHDSSHDOSURFHVV<RXZLOOEHSURYLGHGDGD\
QRWLFHRIDQ\VLWHLQYHVWLJDWLRQDQGZLOOKDYHWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRSDUWLFLSDWHLQDOOVLWHLQYHVWLJDWLRQV

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
6LJQDWXUHRIDSSHOODQWRUDJHQW
'DWH 7HOHSKRQHQXPEHU

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:

'LVWULFW(QJLQHHU:LOPLQJWRQ5HJXODWRU\'LYLVLRQ'DYLG%DLOH\'DUOLQJWRQ$YHQXH:LOPLQJWRQ1RUWK&DUROLQD


For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:

'LYLVLRQ(QJLQHHU&RPPDQGHU86$UP\(QJLQHHU'LYLVLRQ6RXWK$WODQWLF$WWQ0U-DVRQ6WHHOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO
2IILFHU&(6$'3'2)RUV\WK6WUHHW5RRP0$WODQWD*HRUJLD
3KRQH


















/$%.4
"UUO
5JN
#BVNHBSUOFS

4"8
/$%.4
*-'

)FSPO
4USFBN
BOE
8FUMBOE
.JUJHBUJPO
4JUF

9 
"FSJBM

UPQP

BOE
TPJMT
NBQT
"YJPN

9
9 9 
/$
0OF.BQ
9 -J%"3
Site Number/
Feature Name Latitude Longitude
Cowardin
Class
Estimated amount of
aquatic resource in
review area
Class of aquatic
resources
UT1 35.855734 -79.365621 R3UB1/2 1155 linear feet
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
UT2 35.854815 -79.365570 R4UB1/2 363 linear feet
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
UT3 35.856247 -79.366189 R3UB2/3 269 linear feet
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
UT4 35.852036 -79.362248 R3UB1/2 485 linear feet
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
UT5 35.852544 -79.361933 R3UB2/3 907 linear feet
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
UT6 35.853614 -79.360226 R3UB2/3 683 linear feet
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
UT7 35.854101 -79.358908 R4UB2/3 202 linear feet
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
UT8 35.847951 -79.360242 R3UB1/1 1221 linear feet
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
GB Wetland 35.856582 -79.365246 PFO1 0.24 acres
Non-section 10 -
Wetland
PB Wetland 35.855694 -79.365906 PSS1 0.06 acres
Non-section 10 -
Wetland
PC Wetland 35.854978 -79.366584 PFO1 0.06 acres
Non-section 10 -
Wetland
PD Wetland 35.855109 -79.366182 PFO1 0.14 acres
Non-section 10 -
Wetland
GE Wetland 35.852517 -79.361977 PSS1 0.09 acres
Non-section 10 -
Wetland
GF Wetland 35.854459 -79.359486 PSS1 0.02 acres
Non-section 10 -
Wetland
BA Wetland 35.853218 -79.363100 PSS1 0.01 acres
Non-section 10 -
Wetland
BB Wetland 35.853134 -79.362693 PSS1 0.02 acres
Non-section 10 -
Wetland
BC Wetland 35.853337 -79.359848 PSS1 0.04 acres
Non-section 10 -
Wetland
OW-1 35.853411 -79.363295 R3UB2/3 0.10 acres
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
OW-2 35.854870 -79.359953 R3UB2/3 0.35 acres
Non-section 10 -
Non-wetland
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.

Digitally signed by
BAILEY.DAVID.E.1379283736
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government,
ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA,
cn=BAILEY.DAVID.E.1379283736
Date: 2017.12.21 14:51:40 -05'00'
^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_600500500
540520560580620640540
560560560580540580580NCCGIAFIGUREDrawn by:Date:Scale:Project No.:KRJNOV 20171:500017-008Title:Project:Prepared for:Alamance County, NCHERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITEJURISDICTIONALAREAS3³Notes:1. Background Imagery Source:2014 aerial photographyprovided by the NC OneMapprogram (online, provided by the NCGeographic Information Coordination Council)0 1,000 2,000500FeetB e th e lS o u th F o r k R o a d
LegendEasementPotential Streams - approximately 5,285 feetPotential Wetlands (Headwater Forest) - approximately 0.68 acresPotential Jurisdictional Open Water - approximately 0.45 acresNCDOT Roads4-foot elevation contours (LiDAR 2007)^_NC SAM Forms^_NC WAM FormsClarkRoadUT-3UT-1UT-1UT-2UT-5UT-4UT-6UT-7UT-8GB WetlandPB WetlandPD WetlandGE WetlandGF WetlandPC WetlandBA WetlandBB WetlandBC WetlandOW-1OW-2
^_BC-09BC-08BC-07BC-06BC-04BC-03BC-02BB-06BB-05BB-04BB-03BB-01BA-06BA-05BA-04BA-03pd-01gf06gf05gf04gf03gf01ge09ge08ge07ge06gb08gb07gb06gb04gb03gb02gb103gb101GE-92GE-93GE-95GE-96GE-98GE-99pd-91pd-93pd-94pd-95pd-07pd-06pd-05pd-04PC-99PC-05PC-04PC-01gb-96gb-97gb-98gb-99pb-10pb-09pb-08pb-07pb-05pb-04pb-03pb-02pb-01gb-100ge10=91gb09=96gb01=gb104540560 520580
560NCCGIAFIGUREDrawn by:Date:Scale:Project No.:KRJNOV 20171:200017-008Title:Project:Prepared for:Alamance County, NCWETLANDDETAIL4³Notes:1. Background Imagery Source:2014 aerial photographyprovided by the NC OneMapprogram (online, provided by the NCGeographic Information Coordination Council)0 500 1,000250FeetLegendEasementPotential Streams - approximately 5,285 feetPotential Wetlands (Headwater Forest) - approximately 0.68 acresPotential Jurisdictional Open Water - approximately 0.45 acresWetland GPS Points^_Wetland Data FormsNCDOT Roads4-foot elevation contours (LiDAR 2007)GF WetlandPB WetlandGB WetlandPC WetlandGE WetlandPD WetlandHERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITEBC WetlandBB WetlandBA Wetland

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix E
Categorical Exclusion Document

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Count Name: Alamance County
DMS Number: 100014
Project Sponsor: Restoration Systems, LLC
Project Contact Name: Raymond Holz
Project Contact Address:
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 Raleigh, NC 27604
Project Contact E-mail:
[e-mail]
DMS Project Mana er; Lindsay Crocker
ProjectDescription
The Heron encompasses approximately 20 acres of agricultural land used for livestock grazing
and hay production. Existing Site streams have been cleared, dredged of cobble substrate, trampled
by livestock, eroded vertically and laterally. The project will restore streams and wetlands within the Site
for a total of 5928 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 0.63 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs).
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date DMSProject Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
9- G -/7 &Le'�
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1.Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 7

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?

Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-270-9306

July 27, 2017

John Gerber, PE, CFM
State NFIP Coordinator
NC Floodplain Management Branch
4218 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4218

Re: Heron Stream and Wetland mitigation project in Alamance County 17-008
FEMA Floodplain Requirements Checklist

Dear Mr. Gerber:

The purpose of this letter is to request concurrence from the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) concerning a stream and wetland restoration site located in Alamance County. The Site
encompasses approximately 20 acres of agricultural land used for livestock grazing and hay
production. Existing Site streams have been cleared, dredged of cobble substrate, trampled by
livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and receive extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from
livestock. Proposed activities at the Site include the restoration of perennial and intermittent stream
channels, enhancement of perennial stream channel, and restoration of riparian wetlands.

The project easement is depicted on the attached figures and lengths/priority of restoration are as
follows.
Reach Length Priority
UT 1 1145 Priority 1 Restoration and
Enhancement Level I
UT 2 363 Enhancement Level II
UT 3 438 Priority 1 Restoration
UT 4 485 Priority 1 Restoration and
Enhancement Level I
UT 5 931 Priority 1 Restoration
UT 6 683 Priority 1 Restoration and
Enhancement Level II
UT 7 707 Priority 1 Restoration and
Enhancement Level I
UT 8 1221
Preservation, Priority 1
Restoration, and Enhancement
Level II

FEMA mapping was reviewed to determine if the project is located in a FEMA study area (DFIRM
panel number 8796). Based on existing floodplain mapping, South Fork is listed as a Flood Zone AE.
No earthwork is proposed for South Fork and the project should not alter FEMA flood zones.
Therefore, a “Conditional Letter of Map Revision” (CLOMR) is no t expected for this project. Please
see the attached Project Location Map and Topographic Map for your review. Also please find
attached three copies of the NCDMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist for your records.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this
project.

Yours truly,

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL

, INC.

W. Grant Lewis
Senior Project Manager

Attachments
Figure 1 Project Location and Topography
Figure 2 Project Reaches
NCDMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
JUL 2017
1:20000
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
PROJECTLOCATION
1
³
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic
Society, i-cubed
U. S. Geological Survey - National
Geospatial Program. Data Refreshed July,
2017., Copyright:© 2013 National
Geographic Society, i-cubed
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,- Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,- After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,- After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road,- After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,- After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethe South Fork Road,- Site can be accessed from both sides of Bethel South Fork Road.- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.853955, -79.363458 (NAD83/WGS84)
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)
Snow Camp
¬«87 LindleyMillRoadBet
hel
Sout
hForkRoadClarkRoadE G reensboroChap elHi l l R o a d
SnowCampRoad
'­
'­
'­
'­
'­
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
UT 4
UT 5
UT 6
UT 7
UT 8
SouthForkNCCGIA
Proposed Conditions
Heron Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
FIGUREDwn. By:
Date:
Project:
KRJ
Jul 2017
17-008
2
­
0 500 1,000250Feet
Legend
Alamance County Tax Parcels
Easement = 20 ac
Restoration @ 1:1 - 4401 ft (4401 SMU)
Enhancement (level I) @ 1.5:1 - 1295 ft (863 SMU)
Enhancement (level II) @ 2.5:1 - 1309 ft (654 SMU)
Preservation @ 10:1 - 98 ft (10 SMU)
Wetland Restoration = 0.33 ac
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
'­Marsh Treatment Areas
Reroute Power Line
Piped Crossing
Gas Pipeline
2 ft_LIDAR Contour
2.7 acres
2.3 acres
5 acres
6.2 acres
3.8 acresTOTAL: 5928 SMU
r�
otem
LI 1illI'MiClit
I"GCKR�AM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of
the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with
three copies submitted to NFIP (atm. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Name if stream or feature:
South Fork
County:
Alamance
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
muni cipatitylcounty :
Alamance
DFIRM panel number for
entire site--
ite:Consultant
8796
Consultantname:
Axiom Environmental, Inc_
Phone number:
919-215-1693
Address:
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
FEMA_Floodplain_Check ist.docx Page 1 of 3

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of I" = 500". (See Attached)
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration. priority.
(See Attached)
Example
Reach
I Length
Priority
Example: Reach A
11000
One (Restoration)
Example: Reach B
12000
Three (Enhancement)
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
c: Yes r' No
South Fork is Zone AE
if project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
F Redelineation
F- Detailed Study
W Limited Detail Studv
F- Approximate Study
F- Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
r AE Zone
C Floodway
r Non -Encroachment
r None
F- A Zone
Local Setbacks Required
No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodwaylnon-
encroac hment/se tbac ks?
f` Yes t+ No
FEMA_Fioodplain_Chvckhst.docx Page 2 of 3

Land Acquisition (Check)
* State owned (fee sirnple)
* Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
* Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed
to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (atm: Herbert Neily,
(919) 8074101)
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
Yes r No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn-. State NFIP Eneineer. [phone])
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Libby Hodges
Phone Number: 336-570-405?
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
F No Action
I` No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
F Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: W. Grant Lewis Signature: L,�)
TI
y
tt e: President Date: July 27, 2017
FEMA_Floodplain_Checllist.docx Page 3 of 3

North Carolina Department of Public Safety
,J Emergency Management
cm
Roy Cooper, Governor
Erik A. Hooks, Secretary
August 1, 2017
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Atm: W. Grant Lewis
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Subject: Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project 17-008
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project 17-009
Alamance County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Michael A. Sprayberry, Director
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Heron Stream and Welland Mitigation
Project and the Major Hill Stream and Weiland Mitigation Project. As requested, the North
Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management Risk Management
reviewed the documents provided and offers the following comments:
1) Based on the documentation provided, the Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
will include areas within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) of South Fork. Any
grading, fill or placement of equipment or materials in the SFHA will require a floodplain
development permit issued by Alamance County. Specifically, outlined portions of
Unnamed Tributaries 4, 6, 7, and 8 we within the SFHA of South Fork. Please be sure
that the Alamance County Floodplain Administrator reviews and issues permits for work
within the Special Flood Hazard Area.
2) Based on the documentation provided, the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project does not encroach on any mapped SFHA.
3) Based on the documentation provided, the proposed projects do not appear to encroach
on the Non -Encroachment Areas of South Fork nor Pine Hill Branch.
4) The North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management
Risk Management has no objection to the projects as proposed.
MAILING ADDRESS: RM OFFICE LOCATION:
4218 Mail Service Center 4105 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh NC 27699-4218 Raleigh, NC 27607
..ncdps.gov Telephone: [phone]
w ncnoodmaps.com rax: [phone]
An Equal OCGnnundy Empfo e

Axiom Environmental Page 2 of 2 August 1, 2017
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning the
above comments, please contact me at [phone], by email at dan.brubakerna,,ncdos.aov or
at the address shown on the footer of this document.
Sincerely,
<X-(-)3'-'LJ'�
John D. Brubaker, P.E., CFM
NFIP State Coordinator
Risk Management
cc: Milton Carpenter, NFIP Central Planner
Libby Hodges, Planning Director, Alamance County

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-270-9306

July 27, 2017

Shannon Deaton
Habitat Conservation Program Manager
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

Re: Heron Stream and Wetland mitigation project 17-008
Alamance County, NC

Dear Ms. Deaton:

The purpose of this letter is to request concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission concerning a stream and wetland restoration site located in Alamance County. The
project will restore stream channels through active pastureland. Please review and comment on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act from the
potential wetland and stream restoration project (USGS Silk Hope, North Carolina 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle).

The Heron site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly
degraded.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this
project.

Yours truly,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

W. Grant Lewis
Senior Project Manager

Attachments
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographic Soc ie ty, i-cub ed
FIGURE
Dra wn by :
Dat e:
Sca le:
Pro jec t N o.:
KRJ
JUL 2017
1:20000
17-008
Tit le:
Pro jec t:
Pre pa red for :
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
PROJECTLOCATION
1
³
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographicSociety, i-c ubed
U. S. Geo log ic al Su rve y - Natio nalGeospatial Prog ra m. Data Re fresh ed July,2017., Co pyrig ht:© 201 3 Nation alGeographic Soc ie ty, i-cub ed
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,- Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,- After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,- After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road,- After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,- After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethe South Fork Road,- Site can be accessed from both sides of Bethel South Fork Road.- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.853955, -79.363458 (NAD83/WGS84)
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)
Snow Camp
¬«87 LindleyMillRoadBet
hel
Sout
hForkRoadClarkRoadE G reensboroChap elHi l l R o a d
SnowCampRoad

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

August 31, 2017

Mr. Grant Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603

Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project,
Alamance County, North Carolina.

Dear Mr. Lewis,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).

Axiom Environmental, Inc. has developed the Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project in order to
provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several areas of the
project site have channels that are severely degraded. This project will include stream and wetland
restoration and enhancement. The project areas are located east of Bethel South Fork Road, north of its
intersection with Lindley Mill Road, east of Snow Camp.

Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and
wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products
should have loose-weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing and similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or
metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt
and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should
be removed.

Page 2

August 31, 2017
Scoping – Heron Stream Mitigation Project

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

Axiom Environmental, Inc. 218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-270-9306
July 27, 2017

Dale Suiter,
Endangered Species Biologist
USFWS Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636

Re: Heron Stream and Wetland mitigation project in Alamance County 17-008
Alamance County, NC

Dear Mr. Suiter:

The purpose of this letter is to request a list of federally protected species in Alamance County as
well as any known information for each species in the county. Please review and comment on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered species, and migratory birds from a
potential wetland and stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS Silk Hope, North
Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle).

The Heron Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this
project.

Yours truly,

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

W. Grant Lewis
Senior Project Manager

Attachments
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographic Soc ie ty, i-cub ed
FIGURE
Dra wn by :
Dat e:
Sca le:
Pro jec t N o.:
KRJ
JUL 2017
1:20000
17-008
Tit le:
Pro jec t:
Pre pa red for :
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
PROJECTLOCATION
1
³
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographicSociety, i-c ubed
U. S. Geo log ic al Su rve y - Natio nalGeospatial Prog ra m. Data Re fresh ed July,2017., Co pyrig ht:© 201 3 Nation alGeographic Soc ie ty, i-cub ed
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,- Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,- After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,- After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road,- After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,- After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethe South Fork Road,- Site can be accessed from both sides of Bethel South Fork Road.- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.853955, -79.363458 (NAD83/WGS84)
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)
Snow Camp
¬«87 LindleyMillRoadBet
hel
Sout
hForkRoadClarkRoadE G reensboroChap elHi l l R o a d
SnowCampRoad
a
United States Department of the Interior
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 24, 2017
Grant Lewis
Axiom Environmental Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Re: Heron Stream & Wetland Mitigation — Alamance County, NC
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This letter is to inform you that the Service has established an on-line project planning and
consultation process which assists developers and consultants in determining whether a
federally -listed species or designated critical habitat may be affected by a proposed project. For
future projects, please visit the Raleigh Field Office's project planning website at
httns:l/www.fws.eov/raleiPlt/nn.html. If you are only searching for a fist of species that may be
present in the project's Action Area, then you may use the Service's htformation, Planning, and
Consultation System (IPaC) website to determine if any listed, proposed, or candidate species
may he present in the Action Area and generate a species list. The IPaC website may be viewed
at hnos://ecos.fws.goy/ipac/. The IPaC web site contains a complete and frequently updated list
of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), a fist of federal species of concern that
are known to occur in each county in North Carolina, and other resources.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded. or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily implythat the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concem.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project arca. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above -referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is fisted or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/micigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Kathy Matthews of this
office at (919) 8564520 ext. 27.
Sincerely,
to Benjamin
ield Supervisor

IPaC: Regulatory review - Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/I2YAC4I4MRAWJM5N4OVC2G2NRI...
1 of 2 7/27/17, 12:39 PM
IPaC: Regulatory review - Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/I2YAC4I4MRAWJM5N4OVC2G2NRI...
2 of 2 7/27/17, 12:39 PM

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-270-9306

July 27, 2017

Brian Loadholt
Natural Resources Conservation Services
209 N. Graham-Hopedale Rd.
Burlington, NC 27217

Re: Heron Stream and Wetland mitigation project 17-008
Alamance County, NC

Dear Mr. Loadholt:

The purpose of this letter is to request concurrence from the N atural Resources Conservation Service
concerning a stream and wetland restoration site located in Alamance County. The Site encompasses
approximately 20 acres of agricultural land used for livestock grazing and hay production. Existing
Site streams have been cleared, dredged of cobble substrate, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically
and laterally, and receive extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from livestock. Proposed activities at
the Site include the restoration of perennial and intermittent stream channels, enhancement of
perennial stream channel, and restoration of riparian wetlands. In support of this effort, the entire
easement will be planted with native forest vegetation; thereby, removing the area within the easement
from active pasture.

Please review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to the Farmland
Conversion. You will find attached to this letter information including a location map, a map
depicting soil types and acreages to be converted, and Form AD-1006.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this
project.

Yours truly,

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
W. Grant Lewis
Senior Project Manager

Attachments
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographic Soc ie ty, i-cub ed
FIGURE
Dra wn by :
Dat e:
Sca le:
Pro jec t N o.:
KRJ
JUL 2017
1:20000
17-008
Tit le:
Pro jec t:
Pre pa red for :
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
PROJECTLOCATION
1
³
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographicSociety, i-c ubed
U. S. Geo log ic al Su rve y - Natio nalGeospatial Prog ra m. Data Re fresh ed July,2017., Co pyrig ht:© 201 3 Nation alGeographic Soc ie ty, i-cub ed
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,- Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,- After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,- After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road,- After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,- After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethe South Fork Road,- Site can be accessed from both sides of Bethel South Fork Road.- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.853955, -79.363458 (NAD83/WGS84)
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)
Snow Camp
¬«87 LindleyMillRoadBet
hel
Sout
hForkRoadClarkRoadE G reensboroChap elHi l l R o a d
SnowCampRoad
Lc
ObB
HdC2
HdC
GcE
AaB
AaB
GaB2
ObB
Wd
GaB2
HdC2
ObC
GaB2
GcE
HdC2
GaD2
HdC2
W
GaC2
EbC3
HdC
HdB2
GaC
HdC2
ObC
HdD2
HdC
HdB2
ObB2
ObC
HdC2
EaB2
GcE
GaC2
GcE
GaC2
HdB2
GaB2
HdB
GaB
Cg
HdB
GaC2
GaE
AaB HdB
HbB
OaB2
HdB2
W
GaC2
ObB
We
HdD
GaC2
GaB2
GaB2
GaC2 GaC
GaB2
TaC2
HdD HdC2
GaB2
ObB
NCCGIA
Existing ConditionsHeron Stream & Wetland Mitigation SiteAlamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental218 Snow AveRaleigh, NC 27607(919) 215-1693
FIGUREDwn. By:
Date:
Project:
WGL
Jul 2017
17-008
2
­
0 500 1,000250Feet
Legend
Easement = 20 ac
NRCS Soil Map Unit
UT 1
UT 3Map Unit Acreage AcreageSymbolMap Unit Name In Easement Converted
AaB Alamance Silt Loam 2.33 2.33
GaC2 Georgeville Silt Loam 0.03 0
GcE Goldston Slaty Silt Loam 0.41 0.27
HdC & HdC2 Herndon Silt Loam 4.36 4.36
Lc Local Alluvial Land, Poorly Drained 6.75 6.46
ObB Orange Silt Loam 2.38 2.38
Wd Worsham Sandy Loam 3.69 3.69

The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture’s
Natural Resources mission.

An Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer and Lender

August 10, 2017

Grant Lewi
Senior Project Manager
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

Dear Grant Lewis

Thank you for your letter dated August 1, 2017, Subject: Heron Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site in Alamance Co. North Carolina. The following
guidance is provided for your information.

Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.

For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.

Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40-acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban-built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.

The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

North Carolina
State Office

4407 Bland Road
Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice 919-873-2171
Fax [phone]
Grant Lewi
Page 2

If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: [e-mail].

Again, thank you for inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

Sincerely,

Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist

cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County And State
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form).
Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Major Crop(s)Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
Yes No

Acres: % %Acres:
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A.Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B.Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C.Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A.Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B.Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C.Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D.Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1.Area In Nonurban Use
2.Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3.Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4.Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5.Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6.Distance To Urban Support Services
7.Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8.Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9.Availability Of Farm Support Services
10.On-Farm Investments
11.Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12.Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a localsite assessment)160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)260
Site Selected:Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes No
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

Step 1 Federal agencies involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FPPA) to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form.
Step 2 -
-
Originator will send copies A, B and C together with maps indicating locations of site(s), to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) local field office and retain copy D for their files. (Note: NRCS has a field office in most counties
in the U.S. The field office is usually located in the county seat. A list of field office locations are available from the NRCS
State Conservationist in each state).
Step 3 - NRCS will, within 45 calendar days after receipt of form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the pro-
posed project contains prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland.
. Step ‘4 -In cases where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS field offices will com-
plete Parts II, IV and V of the form.
Step 5 -NRCS will return copy A and B of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project. (Copy C will be retained for
NRCS records).
Step 6 -The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form.
Step 7 -The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conver- sion is consistent with the FPPA and the agency’s internal policies.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM

Part I: In completing the "County And State" questions list all the local governments that are responsible
for local land controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.
Part III: In completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following:
1 . Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conver-
sion, because the conversion would restrict access to them.
2.Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification
(e.g. highways, utilities) that will cause a direct conversion.
Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658. 5 (b) of CFR. In cases of
. . : :
and will, be weighed zero, however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points, and criterion
#11 a maximum of 25 points.
Individual Federal agencies at the national level, may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown in the FPPA rule. In all cases where other weights are assigned relative adjust-
ments must be made to maintain the maximum total weight points at l60.
Federal agencies shall consider each of the criteria and assign points within the limits established in the FPPA rule. Sites most suitable for protection under these criteria will receive the
highest total scores, and sites least suitable, the lowest scores.

Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used points is other than 160, adjust the site assessment points to a base of 160.
, Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:
Total points x 160 = 144 points for Site “A.”

STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Part VI: Do not complete Part VI if a local site assessment is used.
projects such as transportation, powerline and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not applycorridor-type
In rating alternative sites,
and the total maximum number of
200
assigned Site A = 180
Maximum points possible
Site Assessment Scoring for the Twelve Factors Used in FPPA
The Site Assessment criteria used in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) rule are designed to
assess important factors other than the agricultural value of the land when determining which alternative
sites should receive the highest level of protection from conversion to non agricultural uses.
Twelve factors are used for Site Assessment and ten factors for corridor-type sites. Each factor is listed
in an outline form, without detailed definitions or guidelines to follow in the rating process. The purpose
of this document is to expand the definitions of use of each of the twelve Site Assessment factors so
that all persons can have a clear understanding as to what each factor is intended to evaluate and how
points are assigned for given conditions.
In each of the 12 factors a number rating system is used to determine which sites deserve the most
protection from conversion to non-farm uses. The higher the number value given to a proposed site, the
more protection it will receive. The maximum scores are 10, 15 and 20 points, depending upon the
relative importance of each particular question. If a question significantly relates to why a parcel of land
should not be converted, the question has a maximum possible protection value of 20, whereas a
question which does not have such a significant impact upon whether a site would be converted, would
have fewer maximum points possible, for example 10.
The following guidelines should be used in rating the twelve Site Assessment criteria:
1. How much land is in non-urban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is
intended?
More than 90 percent:15 points
90-20 percent:14 to 1 points
Less than 20 percent:0 points
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the area within one mile of the proposed
site is non-urban area. For purposes of this rule, "non-urban" should include:
· Agricultural land (crop-fruit trees, nuts, oilseed)
· Range land
· Forest land
· Golf Courses
· Non paved parks and recreational areas
· Mining sites
· Farm Storage
· Lakes, ponds and other water bodies
· Rural roads, and through roads without houses or buildings
· Open space
· Wetlands
· Fish production
· Pasture or hayland
Urban uses include:
· Houses (other than farm houses)
· Apartment buildings
· Commercial buildings
· Industrial buildings
· Paved recreational areas (i.e. tennis courts)
· Streets in areas with 30 structures per 40 acres
· Gas stations
· Equipment, supply stores
· Off-farm storage
· Processing plants
· Shopping malls
· Utilities/Services
· Medical buildings
In rating this factor, an area one-mile from the outer edge of the proposed site should be outlined on a
current photo; the areas that are urban should be outlined. For rural houses and other buildings with
unknown sizes, use 1 and 1/3 acres per structure. For roads with houses on only one side, use one half
of road for urban and one half for non-urban.
The purpose of this rating process is to insure that the most valuable and viable farmlands are protected
from development projects sponsored by the Federal Government. With this goal in mind, factor S1
suggests that the more agricultural lands surrounding the parcel boundary in question, the more
protection from development this site should receive. Accordingly, a site with a large quantity of non-
urban land surrounding it will receive a greater
number of points for protection from development. Thus, where more than 90 percent of the area
around the proposed site (do not include the proposed site in this assessment) is non-urban, assign 15
points. Where 20 percent or less is
non-urban, assign 0 points. Where the area lies between 20 and 90 percent non-urban, assign
appropriate points from 14 to 1, as noted below.
Percent Non-Urban Land
within 1 mile
Points
90 percent or greater 15
85 to 89 percent 14
80 to 84 percent 13
75 to 79 percent 12
70 to 74 percent 11
65 to 69 percent 10
60 to 64 percent 9
55 to 59 percent 8
50 to 54 percent 7
45 to 49 percent 6
40 to 44 percent 5
35 to 39 percent 4
30 to 24 percent 3
25 to 29 percent 2
21 to 24 percent 1
20 percent or less 0
2. How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in non-urban use?
More than 90 percent:l0 points
90 to 20 percent:9 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent:0 points
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the land adjacent to the proposed site is non-
urban use. Where factor #1 evaluates the general location of the proposed site, this factor evaluates
the immediate perimeter of the site. The definition of urban and non-urban uses in factor #1 should be
used for this factor.
In rating the second factor, measure the perimeter of the site that is in non-urban and urban use.
Where more than 90 percent of the perimeter is in non-urban use, score this factor 10 points. Where
less than 20 percent, assign 0 points. If a road is next to the perimeter, class the area according to the
use on the other side of the road for that area. Use 1 and 1/3 acre per structure if not otherwise known.
Where 20 to 90 percent of the perimeter is non-urban, assign points as noted below:
Percentage of Perimeter
Bordering Land
Points
90 percent or greater 10
82 to 89 percent 9
74 to 81 percent 8
65 to 73 percent 7
58 to 65 percent 6
50 to 57 percent 5
42 to 49 percent 4
34 to 41 percent 3
27 to 33 percent 2
21 to 26 percent 1
20 percent or Less 0
3. How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity)
more than five of the last ten years?
More than 90 percent:20 points
90 to 20 percent:19 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent:0 points
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the proposed conversion site has been used or
managed for agricultural purposes in the past 10 years.
Land is being farmed when it is used or managed for food or fiber, to include timber products, fruit, nuts,
grapes, grain, forage, oil seed, fish and meat, poultry and dairy products.
Land that has been left to grow up to native vegetation without management or harvest will be
considered as abandoned and therefore not farmed. The proposed conversion site should be evaluated
and rated according to the percent, of the site farmed.
If more than 90 percent of the site has been farmed 5 of the last 10 years score the site as follows:
Percentage of Site Farmed Points
90 percent or greater 20
86 to 89 percent 19
82 to 85 percent 18
78 to 81 percent 17
74 to 77 percent 16
70 to 73 percent 15
66 to 69 percent 14
62 to 65 percent 13
58 to 61 percent 12
54 to 57 percent 11
50 to 53 percent 10
46 to 49 percent 9
42 to 45 percent 8
38 to 41 percent 7
35 to 37 percent 6
32 to 34 percent 5
29 to 31 percent 4
26 to 28 percent 3
23 to 25 percent 2
20 to 22 percent percent or Less 1
Less than 20 percent 0
4. Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect
farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland?
Site is protected:20 points
Site is not protected:0 points
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which state and local government and private programs
have made efforts to protect this site from conversion.
State and local policies and programs to protect farmland include:
State Policies and Programs to Protect Farmland
1. Tax Relief:
A. Differential Assessment: Agricultural lands are taxed on their agricultural use value, rather
than at market value. As a result, farmers pay fewer taxes on their land, which helps keep them
in business, and therefore helps to insure that the farmland will not be converted to
nonagricultural uses.
1. Preferential Assessment for Property Tax: Landowners with parcels of land used for
agriculture are given the privilege of differential assessment.
2. Deferred Taxation for Property Tax: Landowners are deterred from converting their land
to nonfarm uses, because if they do so, they must pay back taxes at market value.
3. Restrictive Agreement for Property Tax: Landowners who want to receive Differential
Assessment must agree to keep their land in - eligible use.
B. Income Tax Credits
Circuit Breaker Tax Credits: Authorize an eligible owner of farmland to apply some or all of the
property taxes on his or her farmland and farm structures as a tax credit against the owner's
state income tax.
C. Estate and Inheritance Tax Benefits
Farm Use Valuation for Death Tax: Exemption of state tax liability to eligible farm estates.
2. "Right to farm" laws:
Prohibits local governments from enacting laws which will place restrictions upon normally
accepted farming practices, for example, the generation of noise, odor or dust.
3. Agricultural Districting:
Wherein farmers voluntarily organize districts of agricultural land to be legally recognized
geographic areas. These farmers receive benefits, such as protection from annexation, in
exchange for keeping land within the district for a given number of years.
4. Land Use Controls: Agricultural Zoning.
Types of Agricultural Zoning Ordinances include:
A. Exclusive: In which the agricultural zone is restricted to only farm-related dwellings, with, for
example, a minimum of 40 acres per dwelling unit.
B. Non-Exclusive: In which non-farm dwellings are allowed, but the density remains low, such
as 20 acres per dwelling unit.
Additional Zoning techniques include:
A. Slidinq Scale: This method looks at zoning according to the total size of the parcel owned.
For example, the number of dwelling units per a given number of acres may change from
county to county according to the existing land acreage to dwelling unit ratio of surrounding
parcels of land within the specific area.
B. Point System or Numerical Approach: Approaches land use permits on a case by case
basis.
LESA: The LESA system (Land Evaluation-Site Assessment) is used as a tool to help
assess options for land use on an evaluation of productivity weighed against commitment to
urban development.
C. Conditional Use: Based upon the evaluation on a case by case basis by the Board of
Zoning Adjustment. Also may include the method of using special land use permits.
5. Development Rights:
A. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR): Where development rights are purchased by
Government action.
Buffer Zoning Districts: Buffer Zoning Districts are an example of land purchased by
Government action. This land is included in zoning ordinances in order to preserve and
protect agricultural lands from non-farm land uses encroaching upon them.
B. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): Development rights are transferable for use in other
locations designated as receiving areas. TDR is considered a locally based action (not
state), because it requires a voluntary decision on the part of the individual landowners.
6. Governor’s Executive Order: Policy made by the Governor, stating the importance of agriculture,
and the preservation of agricultural lands. The Governor orders the state agencies to avoid the
unnecessary conversion of important farmland to nonagricultural uses.
7. Voluntary State Programs:
A. California's Program of Restrictive Agreements and Differential Assessments: The
California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, allows
cities, counties and individual landowners to form agricultural preserves and enter into
contracts for 10 or more years to insure that these parcels of land remain strictly for
agricultural use. Since 1972 the Act has extended eligibility to recreational and open space
lands such as scenic highway corridors, salt ponds and wildlife preserves. These
contractually restricted lands may be taxed differentially for their real value. One hundred-
acre districts constitute the minimum land size eligible.
Suggestion: An improved version of the Act would state that if the land is converted
after the contract expires, the landowner must pay the difference in the taxes between
market value for the land and the agricultural tax value which he or she had been
paying under the Act. This measure would help to insure that farmland would not be
converted after the 10 year period ends.
B. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program: Agricultural landowners within
agricultural districts have the opportunity to sell their development rights to the Maryland
Land Preservation Foundation under the agreement that these landowners will not
subdivide or develop their land for an initial period of five years. After five years the
landowner may terminate the agreement with one year notice.
As is stated above under the California Williamson Act, the landowner should pay the back
taxes on the property if he or she decides to convert the land after the contract expires, in
order to discourage such conversions.
C. Wisconsin Income Tax Incentive Program: The Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program
of December 1977 encourages local jurisdictions in Wisconsin to adopt agricultural
preservation plans or exclusive agricultural district zoning ordinances in exchange for credit
against state income tax and exemption from special utility assessment. Eligible candidates
include local governments and landowners with at least 35 acres of land per dwelling unit in
agricultural use and gross farm profits of at least $6.000 per year, or $18,000 over three
years.
8. Mandatory State Programs:
A. The Environmental Control Act in the state of Vermont was adopted in 1970 by the Vermont
State Legislature. The Act established an environmental board with 9 members (appointed
by the Governor) to implement a planning process and a permit system to screen most
subdivisions and development proposals according to specific criteria stated in the law.
The planning process consists of an interim and a final Land Capability and Development
Plan, the latter of which acts as a policy plan to control development. The policies are
written in order to:
· prevent air and water pollution;
· protect scenic or natural beauty, historic sites and rare and irreplaceable
natural areas; and
· consider the impacts of growth and reduction of development on areas of
primary agricultural soils.
B. The California State Coastal Commission: In 1976 the Coastal Act was passed to establish
a permanent Coastal Commission with permit and planning authority The purpose of the
Coastal Commission was and is to protect the sensitive coastal zone environment and its
resources, while accommodating the social and economic needs of the state. The
Commission has the power to regulate development in the coastal zones by issuing permits
on a case by case basis until local agencies can develop their own coastal plans, which
must be certified by the Coastal Commission.
C. Hawaii's Program of State Zoning: In 1961, the Hawaii State Legislature established Act
187, the Land Use Law, to protect the farmland and the welfare of the local people of
Hawaii by planning to avoid “unnecessary urbanization”. The Law made all state lands into
four districts: agricultural, conservation, rural and urban. The Governor appointed members
to a State Land Use Commission, whose duties were to uphold the Law and form the
boundaries of the four districts. In addition to state zoning, the Land Use Law introduced a
program of Differential Assessment, wherein agricultural landowners paid taxes on their
land for its agricultural use value, rather than its market value.
D. The Oregon Land Use Act of 1973: This act established the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) to provide statewide planning goals and guidelines.
Under this Act, Oregon cities and counties are each required to draw up a comprehensive
plan, consistent with statewide planning goals. Agricultural land preservation is high on the
list of state goals to be followed locally.
If the proposed site is subject to or has used one or more of the above farmland protection programs or
policies, score the site 20 points. If none of the above policies or programs apply to this site, score 0
points.
5. How close is the site to an urban built-up area?
The site is 2 miles or more from an
urban built-up area
15 points
The site is more than 1 mile but less
than 2 miles from an urban built-up area
10 points
The site is less than 1 mile from, but is
not adjacent to an urban built-up area
5 points
The site is adjacent to an urban built-up
area
0 points
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the proposed site is located next to an existing
urban area. The urban built-up area must be 2500 population. The measurement from the built-up area
should be made from the point at which the density is 30 structures per 40 acres and with no open or
non-urban land existing between the major built-up areas and this point. Suburbs adjacent to cities or
urban built-up areas should be considered as part of that urban area.
For greater accuracy, use the following chart to determine how much protection the site should receive
according to its distance from an urban area. See chart below:
Distance From Perimeter
of Site to Urban Area
Points
More than 10,560 feet 15
9,860 to 10,559 feet 14
9,160 to 9,859 feet 13
8,460 to 9,159 feet 12
7,760 to 8,459 feet 11
7,060 to 7,759 feet 10
6,360 to 7,059 feet 9
5,660 to 6,359 feet 8
4,960 to 5,659 feet 7
4,260 to 4,959 feet 6
3,560 to 4,259 feet 5
2,860 to 3,559 feet 4
2,160 to 2,859 feet 3
1,460 to 2,159 feet 2
760 to 1,459 feet 1
Less than 760 feet (adjacent)0
6. How close is the site to water lines, sewer lines and/or other local facilities and services
whose capacities and design would promote nonagricultural use?
None of the services exist nearer than
3 miles from the site
15 points
Some of the services exist more than
one but less than 3 miles from the site
10 points
All of the services exist within 1/2 mile
of the site
0 points
This question determines how much infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) is in place which could facilitate
nonagricultural development. The fewer facilities in place, the more difficult it is to develop an area.
Thus, if a proposed site is further away from these services (more than 3 miles distance away), the site
should be awarded the highest number of points (15). As the distance of the parcel of land to services
decreases, the number of points awarded declines as well. So, when the site is equal to or further than
1 mile but less than 3 miles away from services, it should be given 10 points. Accordingly, if this
distance is 1/2 mile to less than 1 mile, award 5 points; and if the distance from land to services is less
than 1/2 mile, award 0 points.
Distance to public facilities should be measured from the perimeter of the parcel in question to the
nearest site(s) where necessary facilities are located. If there is more than one distance (i.e. from site to
water and from site to sewer), use the average distance (add all distances and then divide by the
number of different distances to get the average).
Facilities which could promote nonagricultural use include:
· Water lines
· Sewer lines
· Power lines
· Gas lines
· Circulation (roads)
· Fire and police protection
· Schools
7. Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average-size
farming unit in the county? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS
field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture, Acreage
of Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)
As large or larger:10 points
Below average: Deduct 1 point for
each 5 percent below the average,
down to 0 points if 50 percent or more
is below average
9 to 0 points
This factor is designed to determine how much protection the site should receive, according to its size in
relation to the average size of farming units within the county. The larger the parcel of land, the more
agricultural use value the land possesses, and vice versa. Thus, if the farm unit is as large or larger
than the county average, it receives the maximum number of points (10). The smaller the parcel of land
compared to the county average, the fewer number of points given. Please see below:
Parcel Size in Relation to Average County
Size
Points
Same size or larger than average (l00 percent)10
95 percent of average 9
90 percent of average 8
85 percent of average 7
80 percent of average 6
75 percent of average 5
70 percent of average 4
65 percent of average 3
60 percent of average 2
55 percent of average 1
50 percent or below county average 0
State and local Natural Resources Conservation Service offices will have the average farm size
information, provided by the latest available Census of Agriculture data
8. If this site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become
non-farmable because of interference with land patterns?
Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly
converted by the project
10 points
Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres
directly converted by the project
9 to 1 point(s)
Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres
directly converted by the project
0 points
This factor tackles the question of how the proposed development will affect the rest of the land on the
farm The site which deserves the most protection from conversion will receive the greatest number of
points, and vice versa. For example, if the project is small, such as an extension on a house, the rest of
the agricultural land would remain farmable, and thus a lower number of points is given to the site.
Whereas if a large-scale highway is planned, a greater portion of the land (not including the site) will
become non-farmable, since access to the farmland will be blocked; and thus, the site should receive
the highest number of points (10) as protection from conversion
Conversion uses of the Site Which Would Make the Rest of the Land Non-Farmable by Interfering with
Land Patterns
Conversions which make the rest of the property nonfarmable include any development which blocks
accessibility to the rest of the site Examples are highways, railroads, dams or development along the
front of a site restricting access to the rest of the property.
The point scoring is as follows:
Amount of Land Not Including the
Site Which Will Become Non-
Farmable
Points
25 percent or greater 10
23 - 24 percent 9
21 - 22 percent 8
19 - 20 percent 7
17 - 18 percent 6
15 - 16 percent 5
13 - 14 percent 4
11 - 12 percent 3
9 - 11 percent 2
6 - 8 percent 1
5 percent or less 0
9. Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm
suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?
All required services are available 5 points
Some required services are available 4 to 1 point(s)
No required services are available 0 points
This factor is used to assess whether there are adequate support facilities, activities and industry to
keep the farming business in business. The more support facilities available to the agricultural
landowner, the more feasible it is for him or her to stay in production. In addition, agricultural support
facilities are compatible with farmland. This fact is important, because some land uses are not
compatible; for example, development next to farmland cam be dangerous to the welfare of the
agricultural land, as a result of pressure from the neighbors who often do not appreciate the noise,
smells and dust intrinsic to farmland. Thus, when all required agricultural support services are available,
the maximum number of points (5) are awarded. When some services are available, 4 to 1 point(s) are
awarded; and consequently, when no services are available, no points are given. See below:
Percent of
Services Available
Points
100 percent 5
75 to 99 percent 4
50 to 74 percent 3
25 to 49 percent 2
1 to 24 percent 1
No services 0
10. Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on farm investments such as barns,
other storage buildings, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways,
or other soil and water conservation measures?
High amount of on-farm investment 20 points
Moderate amount of non-farm
investment
19 to 1 point(s)
No on-farm investments 0 points
This factor assesses the quantity of agricultural facilities in place on the proposed site. If a significant
agricultural infrastructure exists, the site should continue to be used for farming, and thus the parcel will
receive the highest amount of points towards protection from conversion or development. If there is little
on farm investment, the site will receive comparatively less protection. See-below:
Amount of On-farm Investment Points
As much or more than necessary to
maintain production (100 percent)
20
95 to 99 percent 19
90 to 94 percent 18
85 to 89 percent 17
80 to 84 percent 16
75 to 79 percent 15
70 to 74 percent 14
65 to 69 percent 13
60 to 64 percent 12
55 to 59 percent 11
50 to 54 percent 10
45 to 49 percent 9
40 to 44 percent 8
35 to 39 percent 7
30 to 34 percent 6
25 to 29 percent 5
20 to 24 percent 4
15 to 19 percent 3
10 to 14 percent 2
5 to 9 percent 1
0 to 4 percent 0
11. Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the
support for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these
support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?
Substantial reduction in demand for support
services if the site is converted
10 points
Some reduction in demand for support
services if the site is converted
9 to 1 point(s)
No significant reduction in demand for
support services if the site is converted
0 points
This factor determines whether there are other agriculturally related activities, businesses or jobs
dependent upon the working of the pre-converted site in order for the others to remain in production.
The more people and farming activities relying upon this land, the more protection it should receive from
conversion. Thus, if a substantial reduction in demand for support services were to occur as a result of
conversions, the proposed site would receive a high score of 10; some reduction in demand would
receive 9 to 1 point(s), and no significant reduction in demand would receive no points.
Specific points are outlined as follows:
Amount of Reduction in Support
Services if Site is Converted to
Nonagricultural Use
Points
Substantial reduction (100 percent)10
90 to 99 percent 9
80 to 89 percent 8
70 to 79 percent 7
60 to 69 percent 6
50 to 59 percent 5
40 to 49 percent 4
30 to 39 percent 3
20 to 29 percent 2
10 to 19 percent 1
No significant reduction (0 to 9 percent)0
12. Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with
agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of the surrounding
farmland to nonagricultural use?
Proposed project is incompatible with existing
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
10 points
Proposed project is tolerable of existing
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
9 to 1 point(s)
Proposed project is fully compatible with existing
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
0 points
Factor 12 determines whether conversion of the proposed agricultural site will eventually cause the
conversion of neighboring farmland as a result of incompatibility of use of the first with the latter. The
more incompatible the proposed conversion is with agriculture, the more protection this site receives
from conversion. Therefor-, if the proposed conversion is incompatible with agriculture, the site receives
10 points. If the project is tolerable with agriculture, it receives 9 to 1 points; and if the proposed
conversion is compatible with agriculture, it receives 0 points.
CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration
connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines,
highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess
the suitability of each corridor-type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the
land evaluation information.
For Water and Waste Programs, corridor analyses are not applicable for distribution or collection
networks. Analyses are applicable for transmission or trunk lines where placement of the lines are
flexible.
(1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile form where the project is intended?
(2) More than 90 percent (3) 15 points
(4) 90 to 20 percent (5) 14 to 1 point(s).
(6) Less than 20 percent (7) 0 points
(2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?
(3) More than 90 percent (4) 10 point(s)
(5) 90 to 20 percent (6) 9 to 1 points
(7) less than 20 percent (8) 0 points
(3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more
than five of the last 10 years?
(4) More than 90 percent (5) 20 points
(6) 90 to 20 percent (7) 19 to 1 point(s)
(8) Less than 20 percent (9) 0 points
(4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or
covered by private programs to protect farmland?
Site is protected 20 points
Site is not protected 0 points
(5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit
in the County? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in
each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture, Acreage of Farm Units in
Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)
As large or larger 10 points
Below average deduct 1 point for each 5
percent below the average, down to 0 points if
50 percent or more below average
9 to 0 points
(6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-
farmable because of interference with land patterns?
Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of
acres directly converted by the project
25 points
Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of
the acres directly convened by the project
1 to 24 point(s)
Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the
acres directly converted by the project
0 points
(7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm
suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?
All required services are available 5 points
Some required services are available 4 to 1 point(s)
No required services are available 0 points
(8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other
storage building, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil
and water conservation measures?
High amount of on-farm investment 20 points
Moderate amount of on-farm investment 19 to 1 point(s)
No on-farm investment 0 points
(9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for
farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and
thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?
Substantial reduction in demand for support
services if the site is convened
25 points
Some reduction in demand for support
services if the site is convened
1 to 24 point(s)
No significant reduction in demand for support
services if the site is converted
0 points
(10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture
that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural
use?
Proposed project is incompatible to existing
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
10 points
Proposed project is tolerable to existing
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
9 to 1 point(s)
Proposed project is fully compatible with
existing agricultural use of surrounding
farmland
0 points

Axiom Environmental, Inc. 218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-270-9306

July 27, 2017

Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617

Re: Heron Stream and Wetland mitigation project in Alamance County 17-008
Alamance County, NC

Dear Renee:

The purpose of this letter is to request written concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
for the Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project in Alamance County. Please review and comment on
any possible issues that might emerge with respect to SHPO from a potential wetland and stream restoration
project depicted on the attached mapping (USGS Silk Hope, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle).

Field visits were conducted in November and December 2016 to ascertain the presence of structures or features
that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No structures were identified within the
proposed Site boundary. In addition, the SHPO website was evaluated for known occurrences of sites eligible
for the historic register. Based on the website review, two surveyed structures are located on Bethel South
Fork Road near the Site (AM0180 J.W. Hadley House and AM0179 Alec Hadley House); however, neither
structure appears eligible for the National Register, and the structures will not be disturbed during mitigation
activities.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.

Yours truly,

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

W. Grant Lewis
Senior Project Manager

Attachments
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographic Soc ie ty, i-cub ed
FIGURE
Dra wn by :
Dat e:
Sca le:
Pro jec t N o.:
KRJ
JUL 2017
1:20000
17-008
Tit le:
Pro jec t:
Pre pa red for :
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
PROJECTLOCATION
1
³
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographicSociety, i-c ubed
U. S. Geo log ic al Su rve y - Natio nalGeospatial Prog ra m. Data Re fresh ed July,2017., Co pyrig ht:© 201 3 Nation alGeographic Soc ie ty, i-cub ed
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,- Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,- After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,- After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road,- After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,- After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethe South Fork Road,- Site can be accessed from both sides of Bethel South Fork Road.- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.853955, -79.363458 (NAD83/WGS84)
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)
Snow Camp
¬«87 LindleyMillRoadBet
hel
Sout
hForkRoadClarkRoadE G reensboroChap elHi l l R o a d
SnowCampRoad
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
August 22, 2017
W. Grant Lewis
Project Manager
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Office of Archives and I listory
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
gl ew i s@axiomenvironmental. org
Re: Heron Stream and Wetland mitigation project, Alamance County, ER 17-1359
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Thank you for your letter of July 27, 2017, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee. lg edhill-
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
Qox" - "
Ramona M. Banos
Location: 109 Last Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Addmss: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

FORM-LBE-CCA
®kcehCoeG htiw tropeR ™paM suidaR RDE ehT
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
9080 Bethel South Fork Road
Snow Camp, NC 27349
Inquiry Number: 5005690.2s
July 27, 2017
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 8
Orphan Summary 9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting Source Map A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched PSGR-1
TC5005690.2s
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2017 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5005690.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
9080 BETHEL SOUTH FORK ROAD
SNOW CAMP, NC 27349
COORDINATES
35.8535100 - 35˚ 51’ 12.63’’Latitude (North):
79.3615860 - 79˚ 21’ 41.70’’Longitude (West):
Zone 17Universal Tranverse Mercator:
647948.9UTM X (Meters):
3968740.0UTM Y (Meters):
554 ft. above sea levelElevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
5945591 SILK HOPE, NCTarget Property Map:
2013Version Date:
5945515 CRUTCHFIELD CROSSROADS, NCSouthwest Map:
2013Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
20140827, 20140619Portions of Photo from:
USDASource:
5005690.2s Page 2
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
9080 BETHEL SOUTH FORK ROAD
SNOW CAMP, NC 27349
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTIONSITE NAME ADDRESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5005690.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.56 0
5 60
560560
005 6 0
5 205
6
0
52 056060
5 6 0
5 6056 0
600600600 600
60060064 0
640640
6 4 06 00
6 00
6 00
5600 600480
520
6 00 48 0
5 6 0
560480600
5605
2
0560
5205 2 0
52056052052060056
0
520
5 2 05
5 2 0
5 2 05 2 0
520520520600
520520
52052052060052052056
052 0
56
0
6 00520 600
520600
520560 6 0 0
600
60 056
0
5 2060
5 60 520560
6006005 2 0
60060 0560 560 600
600520
56 0
56 0
6005 6 0560
560560520
520
6 0 0
5 6 0
6
4
0
600600
640
5 60
5
20600560560600560600600600600600560560520560520600
6 0 0 6005605 2 0
560560 560600
56 0
5 60560 6006 00
5606 005206
00560
560
5 605
60
560
500
5 6 0
5 6 0
5 60
5605 6 0
5 60560560560560
560
560
560 5 605 605 6 0560560560
60 0600600600
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.
600
560600
60
0 520560560
560
560520
520 560

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix F
Financial Assurances

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018
Per the NC EEP RFP #: 16-006990, Restoration Systems will provide financial assurance in one
of the following forms:

1) Performance Bonding – The Offeror must provide security in the form of acceptable
performance bonds as described in the following paragraph to guarantee delivery of the
maximum number of originally contracted Mitigation Units. The performance bonds must
be obtained from a company licensed in North Carolina as shown in the Federal Treasury
Listing of Approved Sureties (Circular 570). The maximum allowable amount provided by
a surety may not exceed the “underwriting limitation” for the surety as identified in the
Federal Treasury Listing. Although this RFP is a request for mitigation and not
construction, the performance bonds shall follow the prescribed wording provided in
N.C.G.S. § 44A-33. The Offeror must provide two performance bonds. The first bond must
be for 100% of the total value of the contract and must be in effect and submitted with the
Task 3 deliverable (see Section 8. SCOPE OF WORK – Task 3) before EEP will authorize
payment for that deliverable. The bond must remain in effect until the Offeror has received
written notification from the EEP that the requirements of Task 6 (submittal of baseline
monitoring report) have been met. After the successful completion of Task 6, the bond can
be retired and a second bond must be substituted for the first. The second bond must be for
40% of the value of the contract, which covers the monitoring period. The Monitoring
Phase Performance Bond can be reduced yearly concurrent with the payment schedule once
the yearly deliverable is approved by EEP and credits are released by the IRT.

2) Letters of Credit- LOCs must be drawn from a reputable Bank identified by the FDIC as
“Well Capitalized” or “Adequately Capitalized” and follow the submittal timing, contract
amounts and schedules for reduction as those described above for the performance bonds.
Evergreen or irrevocable Letters of Credit shall be required to provide a 120 day notice of
cancellation, termination or non-renewal.

3) Casualty Insurance on underlying performance of Credits or Units of Restoration – Must
follow the same submittal timing, contract amounts and reduction schedules as those
described above in performance bonds. The insurance must contain the following
information.
a) The “NC DENR” must be named as the “Regulatory Body”. NC DENR shall have
the sole right to place a claim against the policy. NC DENR shall have the sole right
and obligation as the responsible “regulatory body” to approve any claim settlement.
b) Initial insurance must be for a 10 year period.

The process of evaluating these options is underway. Once obtained, RS will provide digital and
hard copies of the assurance of distribution to IRT members.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix G
Site Protection Instrument

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 11

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
_______________ COUNTY

SPO File Number:
DMS Project Number:

Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this ________day of ________________, 20__, by Landowner name goes here
, (“Grantor”), whose mailing address is Landowner address goes here , to the State of
North Carolina, (“Grantee”), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The
designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as
required by context.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 2 of 11

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between ( insert name and
address of full delivery contract provider ) and the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, to provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality Purchase and Services Contract Number __________.

WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In-Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and

WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and

WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3 of 11

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in __________ Township, ___________ County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately ________
acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book _____ at Page ____
of the _________ County Registry, North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of if known,
insert name of stream, branch, river or waterway here.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.

The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:

Tracts Number ________________ containing a total of _________ acres as shown on the plats
of survey entitled “Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Project Name: ___________, SPO File No.__________, EEP Site No. ___________,
Property of _________________________,” dated ___________, 20__ by name of surveyor,
PLS Number __________ and recorded in the ______________ County, North Carolina Register
of Deeds at Plat Book _______ Pages __________.

See attached “Exhibit A”, Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
“Conservation Easement Area”

The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:

I. DURATION OF EASEMENT

Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor’s heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4 of 11

II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee .
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:

A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.

B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.

C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.

D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.

E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.

F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.

G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.

H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5 of 11

All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.

I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.

J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.

K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.

L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.

M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple (“fee”) that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee’s right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.

N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.

O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.

The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 of 11

III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES

A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities on the property to restore,
construct, manage, maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities
or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation
Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.

B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in-stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.

C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.

D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so
may result in the State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences)
within the conservation area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the
landowner (Grantor) must provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.

E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.

IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7 of 11

power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.

B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.

C. Acts Beyond Grantor’s Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor’s control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor’s acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.

E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.

V. MISCELLANEOUS

A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.

B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 8 of 11

obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.

C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.

D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.

E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.

F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:

Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

and

General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 9 of 11

VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT

Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,

AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 11

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.

___________________________________ (SEAL)

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF _________________

I, _____________________________, a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that _________________________, Grantor, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the __________
day of ___________________, 20__.

________________________________________
Notary Public

My commission expires:

______________________________

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 11 of 11

Exhibit A

[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix H
Credit Release Schedule

28

Table 3 – Schedule of Monitoring Events
Monitoring
Event
Monitoring Activities Required
Streams Wetlands
Pre-Construction • Water Quality (Section VII(A))
• Macroinvertebrate & Fish (Section VII(B-C))*
• Per Mitigation Plan
Year 0
(As-Built)
• As-built Survey (includes longitudinal profile and
sampling point locations)
• As-built Survey
Year 1
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Water Quality (Section VII(A))*
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
• Visual, two times (Section X)
Year 2
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Water Quality (Section VII(A))*
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
• Visual, two times (Section X)

Year 3
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Water Quality (Section VII(A))*
• Macroinvertebrate & Fish (Section VII(B-C))*
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
• Visual, two times (Section X)
Year 4 • Water Quality (Section VII(A)) *
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Visual (Section X)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
Year 5
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Water Quality (Section VII(A)) *
• Macroinvertebrate & Fish (Section VII(B-C)) *
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
• Visual, two times (Section X)
Year 6 • Water Quality (Section VII(A)) *
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
• Visual, two times (Section X)
Year 7
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Water Quality (Section VII(A)) *
• Macroinvertebrate & Fish (Section VII(B-C)) *
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
• Visual, two times (Section X)
*Indicates optional monitoring activities
XIV. Credit Release Schedules

The standard release schedule for mitigation bank and ILF credits generated through stream and wetland
mitigation projects has been modified to meet the new standards for the monitoring timeframes provided
in this guidance document. For mitigation banks, the first credit release (15% of the bank’s total stream
restoration and/or enhancement credits) will occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, and upon
completion following criteria:
1) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE
2) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
29

3) The mitigation bank site must be secured
4) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan
5) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE
6) Issuance of the 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.

For mitigation sites that include preservation-only credits, 100% of the preservation credits will be
released with the completion of the six criteria stated above.

For ILF sites (including all NCDMS projects), no initial release of credits (Milestone 1) is provided because
ILF programs utilized advance credits, so no initial release is necessary to help fund site construction. To
account for this, the 15% credit release associated with the first milestone (bank establishment) is held
until the second milestone, so that the total credits release at the second milestone is 30%. In order for
NCDMS to receive the 30% release (shown in the schedules as Milestone 2), they must comply with the
credit release requirements stated in Section IV(I)(3) of the approved NCDMS Instrument.

The following conditions apply to the credit release schedules:

A. A reserve of 10% of a site’s total stream credits will be released after four bankfull events
have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the
monitoring period, release of these reserve credits is at the discretion of the NCIRT.

B. For mitigation banks, implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan must be initiated no
later than the first full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (credit sale).

C. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis,
assuming that the annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance
with Section IV (General Monitoring Requirements) of this document, and that the monitoring
report demonstrates that interim performance standards are being met and that no other
concerns have been identified on-site during the visual monitoring. All credit releases require
written approval from the USACE.

D. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a
determination by the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined
in the Mitigation Plan.

30

The schedules below list the updated credit release schedules for stream and wetland mitigation projects
developed by bank and ILF sites in North Carolina:
Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Wetlands
Credit
Release
Milestone
Release Activity
Banks ILF/NCDMS
Interim
Release
Total
Released
Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
stated above) 15% 15% 0% 0%
2
Completion of all initial physical and biological
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
Plan
15% 30% 30% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 40% 10% 40%
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 50% 10% 50%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 15% 65% 15% 65%
6* Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 5% 70% 5% 70%
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 15% 85% 15% 85%
8* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 5% 90% 5% 90%
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that
performance standards have been met 10% 100% 10% 100%
*Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during
these monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.

Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Coastal Marsh Wetlands
Credit
Release
Milestone
Release Activity
Banks ILF/NCDMS
Interim
Release
Total
Released
Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
stated above) 15% 15% 0% 0%
2
Completion of all initial physical and biological
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
Plan
15% 30% 30% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 40% 10% 40%
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 15% 55% 15% 55%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 20% 75% 20% 75%
6 Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 85% 10% 85%
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
performance standards have been met 15% 100% 15% 100%
31

Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Streams
Credit
Release
Milestone
Release Activity
Banks ILF/NCDMS
Interim
Release
Total
Released
Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
stated above) 15% 15% 0% 0%
2
Completion of all initial physical and biological
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
Plan
15% 30% 30% 30%
3
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
channels are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
10% 40% 10% 40%
4
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
channels are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
10% 50% 10% 50%
5
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
channels are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
10% 60% 10% 60%
6*
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
channels are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
5% 65%
(75%**) 5% 65%
(75%**)
7
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
channels are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
10% 75%
(85%**) 10% 75%
(85%**)
8*
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that
channels are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
5% 80%
(90%**) 5% 80%
(90%**)
9
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that
channels are stable, performance standards
have been met
10% 90%
(100%**) 10% 90%
(100%**)
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix I
Maintenance Plan

Maintenance Plan

The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
m inimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
m aintenance. Routine m aintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and m ay include the following:

Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose
coir matting and supplem ental installations of live stakes and other target
vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and
head-cutting.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be m aintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant comm unity. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive
plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any
vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Beaver Beaver and associated dams are to be removed as they colonize and until the
project is closed.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between
the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by
fence, m arker, bollard, post, tree- blazing, or other means as allowed by site
conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed,
damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or
corridor agreements.
Terracell Drop
Structure
Routine maintenance and repair activities may include removal of debris and
supplem ental installation of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel. Undermining of the structure may require repair or replacement.

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix J
Randolph Electric Membership Corporation
Utility Work Agreement

Utility Work Agreement
a 74tns
This agreement, made this 27th day of January , 2016 by and between Russell B Hadley ,
(hereinafter referred to as the Member) and Randolph Electric Membership Corporation,
(hereinafter referred to as REMC).
WITNESSETH:
NOW, THEREFORE, in order to facilitate the orderly and expeditious completion of requested
work, the Member and REMC have agreed to the following:
1. That the scope, description and location of the work to be undertaken by REMC is as follows:
Relocate overhead ortmary power line and install secondary service to a meter base that serves a
well. Located at 5922 Bethel South Fork Rd.
2. That REMC will prepare an estimate, detailing the cost of labor, construction, materials, supplies,
handling charges, transportation, equipment, rights of way, preliminary engineering and construction
engineering, including an itemization of appropriate credits for salvage, betterments and accrued
depreciation, all in sufficient detail to provide the Member a reasonable basis for analysis.
3. That in the event it is determined there are changes in the scope of the work, the duration of the
work, extra work, or major changes from the statement of work covered by this agreement,
reimbursement shall be limited to the same rate as below. Trucks and other equipment needed in the
above mentioned work will be billed as follows: N/A
4. The member will be billed ata cost of $ N/A per hour, with an estimated N/A hours needed
to complete the work. The above mentioned equipment will be assigned to this job for N/A
hours. For all jobs with an expected duration time of 2 hours or less, the REMC crews and all
needed equipment will remain at the job site. The total estImated cost of the work proposed herein Is
estimated to be S 10.160 . We will bill actual cost.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have affected their names by their duly authorized
officers that day and year first above written.
Member
By:
Title:
Randolph Electric Membership Corporation
By: David Rich
Title: Staking Specialist

Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina July 2018

Appendix K
City of Burlington
Map Modification for Land Application

1
Grant Lewis
From:Worth Creech <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, July 02, 2018 1:55 PM
To:Grant Lewis
Subject:FW: Easement
fyi 

Worth Creech I Restoration Systems LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211  I Raleigh, NC 27604 
office:  919‐334‐9114 I mobile: 919‐389‐3888 
web:  www.restorationsystems.com  

From: Shane Fletcher <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 1:54 PM  
To: Worth Creech <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Easement 

The City of Burlington will modify our maps for NC-AM-16 ( Michael Hadley ) and not land apply in any
stream restoration easements.

Shane Fletcher
Residuals Management Coordinator
City of Burlington NC
Cell - 336-675-5927
Office - 336-570-6138
[e-mail]
0
0
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
STATE STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
PROJECT ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES
PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:09/08/990
00
7/16/2018Heron_psh_01.dgnBSmithCONTRACT:Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Prepared in the Office of:
GRUBBING, GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND PLANTING)
STREAM RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT (CLEARING,
Not to Scale
VICINITY MAP
50
50
10
50
50
10
100
100
25
25
5 5
Raleigh, NC 27603
218 Snow Ave
Axiom Environmental
GRANT LEWIS
PROJECT DESIGNER
WORTH CREECH
Raleigh, NC 27604
Suite 211
1101 Haynes St.
Restoration Systems
SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
Designed By:
SITE
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
S
R
2
3
5
2
SR 2351
NONRIPARIAN WETLAND (acreage)RIPARIAN WETLAND (acreage)STREAM (linear footage)RESTORATION LEVEL
RESTORATION
ENHANCEMENT
TOTALS
MITIGATION UNITS
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
UT3
UT1
JOSHUA G. DALTON, P.E.
PS
H 04
P
SH

0
5
PSH 07P S H 0 8 PSH 09
PSH 11DATE:
STA 0+00
START -UT3-PSH 10

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD60% PLANS-
--
-
- NONRIPARIAN WMUs Clar
k Rd
Bethel South Fork Rd
South Fork Creek
STA 0+00
START -UT1-
UT1
UT2
STA 0+00
START -UT2-
PSH 06
UT8
STA 0+00
START -UT5-
12PSH
PSH 13PSH 14PSH 15PSH 17
PSH 16
STA 0+00
START -UT4-
STA 0+00
START -UT7-
STA 0+00
START -UT6-
UT4
UT5
UT7
UT6
HERON SITE
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
HERON SITE
CHATHAM COUNTYALAMANCE COUNTYSouth Fork Creek
CHATHAM COUNTY
ALAMANCE COUNTY
STA 2+79
END -UT3-
STA 13+06
END -UT1-STA 3+98
END -UT2-
STA 4+50
END -UT4-
STA 7+81
END -UT6-
STA 9+96
END -UT7-
STA 14+90
END -UT5-
STA 8+57
END -UT8-
PROPOSED LENGTH OF UT4= 450 LF
PROPOSED LENGTH OF UT3= 279 LF
PROPOSED LENGTH OF UT2= 398 LF
PROPOSED LENGTH OF UT1= 1306 LF
PROPOSED LENGTH OF UT8= 857 LF
PROPOSED LENGTH OF UT7= 996 LF
PROPOSED LENGTH OF UT6= 781 LF
PROPOSED LENGTH OF UT5= 1490 LF
TOTAL STREAM LENGTH= 6557 LF
4183 0.35
1234
1131 0.61
5264 SMUs 0.66 RIPARIAN WMUsHERON SITE7.8 ACRES
LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION:
STA 0+00
START -UT8-SOUTH FORK CREEKSOUTH FORK CREEKSOUTH FORK CREEK
CREEKSOUTH FORKLi
ndl
eyMillRd1003
2351
2352
2353 SouthSouth
2351
1003
1339
Bethel Rd
South Fork
Lindley Mill RdSilk Hope .27
.24.32DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
7/16/2018Heron_psh_02A.dgnBSmith
*
*

É
TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTIONTYPICAL CHANNEL PROFILE
TYPICAL CHANNEL PLAN VIEW
VARIES
1
1 BANK SLOPE
STAKES
LIVE WILLOW
MAX. 1:1 SLOPE
W thal DpoolW pool
SIDE SLOPE
VALLEY
15' MIN.W
3
1
thalDbkf
STAKES
LIVE WILLOW
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
rifD0.5'botW
thalW
POOL
GLIDE RIFFLE
POOL
RUN GLIDE RIFFLERUN
ELEVATION
WATER SURFACE
CHANNEL
BOTTOM OF
(VARIES - SEE NOTE 1)
POOL-TO-POOL SPACING (ft.)
POOL LENGTH
RIFFLE
TAIL OF
CHANNEL
DESIGN
FLOWRIFFLERUN
RADIUSR1 GLI
DEHR1
RI
F
F
LERIFFLE
TAIL OF R2
FLOW
POOL LENGTH
RIFFLE
HEAD OF
HR2 RIFFLE MANAGER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL.
OR AVOID OBSTACLES. THE STAKE-OUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
2. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO SAVE TREES
CONNECTING TANGENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE THE LAYOUT OF THE CHANNEL.
THE RADII AND SCRIBING THE CENTER LINE FOR EACH POOL BEND. THE
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT THE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT BY LOCATING
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW NOTES:
CENTER OF POOL BEND TO CENTER OF POOL BEND.
1. POOL-TO-POOL SPACING IS MEASURED FROM
NOTES:
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
riffTO 1/3 D
CHANNEL BANK
BED MATERIAL UP
EXTEND STONE
Cobble Stone
Class A and
BANK SLOPE
2:1
2
TYPICALS 2A
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SEE NOTE 2
CONTROL MATTING
EROSION
COIR FIBER
SEE NOTE 2
CONTROL MATTING
EROSION
COIR FIBER
A MIX OF CLASS A AND SMALLER STONE.
LENGTH OF EACH RIFFLE SECTION. THE BED MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY BED MATERIAL FOR THE ENTIRE BED
PLACED TO THE TOP OF BANK. (SEE DETAIL COIR FIBER MATTING, SHEET E-3D)
2. BANK PROTECTION SHALL CONSIST OF NATURAL COIR FIBER MATTING AND

USED TO BACKFILL EXISTING CHANNEL.
1. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE
CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH Wbkf (ft.)Wbot (ft.)Driff (ft.)Dthal (ft.)Dpool (ft.)Wpool (ft.)Wthal (ft.)
2.50.7 0.1 1.1 9.3
0.1 0.6 4.9
5.2
2.8
8.4
1.0
4.8 3.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 5.2 1.5
4.4
5.3 0.3 0.1 0.7 5.8 1.0
UT 1
UT 3
UT 4, 5, and 6
UT 7
UT 8 5.9 4.3 0.3 0.1 0.8 6.5 1.5
0.3
3.7
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
7/16/2018Heron_psh_02B.dgnBSmithTYPICALS 2B
REACH ARM LENGTH (FT.)CHANNEL DEPTH (FT.)FLOW5'5'
HEADER STONE
ELEVATION A-A
5'5'
FLOW
FILTER FABRIC
PROFILE B-B
FOOTER STONE
HEADER STONE
TYPICAL CROSS-VANEBABA
3 2
1
1
2
3
3
2
1
PLAN VIEW
ARM LENGTH
O- 30O20O- 30O20
0.5'
BANK
CHANNEL
21 21
FABRIC
FILTER
STONE
FOOTER
BANK
CHANNEL
STONE
HEADER
CHANNEL
EXIST.
STONE
FOOTER
TO GRADE
BACK FILL
GROUND
EXIST.
WHERE NEEDED
(#57 STONE)
ROCK FILL
DEPTH
CHANNEL
MEASURING A MINIMUM OF 24" ALONG THE SHORTEST DIMENSION.
HEADER AND FOOTER STONES ARE LARGE, ANGULAR BOULDERS
NOTE:
LOG CROSS VANE
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
VANE ARM DOES NOT HAVE A ROOTBALL TO TIE INTO THE BANK.
5. PERPENDICULAR ROOTWAD LOGS ARE REQUIRED IF THE LOG
STRUCTURE.
ELEVATION AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE
FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER TO THE FINISHED GRADE
THROUGH LOG GAPS. FILTER FABRIC SHALL EXTEND
OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT WASHOUT OF SEDIMENT
4. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE
3. ALL STONES ARE TO BE STRUCTURE STONES.
STREAMS.
2. A DOUBLE FOOTER LOG MAY BE REQUIRED IN SAND BED
(FOOTER LOG MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH PINE)
DIAMETER AND SHALL BE A HARDWOOD SPECIES.
1. HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 18"
NOTES:
MATERIAL
NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS 'A' RIP RAP/
#57 STONE AND BANKFULLFLOW
BANKFULLFILTER FABRIC
LOG SILL
FILTER FABRIC
HEADER LOG
BLOG
FOOTER
B
POOL
DEEP
A
A
(BANKFULL)
TOP OF BANK
ELEVATION
STREAMBED
POOL
SCOUR
FLOW
FOOTER LOG
FABRIC
FILTER
CHANNEL MATERIAL
#57 STONE / NATIVE
MATERIAL
NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS 'A' RIP RAP /
COIR LOG
HEADER LOG
SCALE:NTS
CHANNEL MATERIAL
CLASS 'A' RIP RAP / NATIVE
WITH #57 STONE AND
BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED
GROUND
EXISTING
HEADER LOG (BANKFULL)
TOP OF BANK
GROUND
EXISTING
FILTER FABRIC
FOOTER LOG
ELEVATION
STREAMBED
POOL
COIR LOG
PLAN VIEW
{AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
TYPICAL LOG VANE
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
UT 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 7 0.4 - 0.5
UT 1 10 0.8
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: N.T.S.
HOLE
SCOUR
STONE
LARGE
BANK
CHANNEL
A
B20°-30°
LOG VANE
FABRIC
FILTER
STONE
LARGE
BANK
CHANNEL
A
F
L
OW PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
NOTE:BTOP OF BANK
STONE
LARGE
FABRIC
FILTER
LOG VANE
BANKFULL
STONE
LARGE
CROSS-SECTION A-A
SCALE: N.T.S.
CHANNEL
BOTTOM OF
PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
NOTE:
PROFILE B-B
SCALE: N.T.S.
FABRIC
FILTER
LOG VANE
10-15°
STONE
LARGE
2.0'FLOW
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
BANKFULL
TOP OF BANK
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
7/16/2018Heron_psh_02C.dgnBSmithTYPICALS 2C
Wetland
Stormwater
Wetland
Stormwater
Tie to Existing Grade
PROFILE
SECTION A-A
A
MARSH TREATMENT AREA
Side Slope at 8 to 1
Wetland at 15 to 1
Grade Base of
PIPE INLET
DITCH OR
BASIN
RIP RAP
DEEP POOL
RIP RAP OUTLET AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
Wbot 6.0 ft
3
1
3
1
CROSS-SECTION
).SALIX NIGRAAND TOPSOIL AND PLANTED WITH EROSION CONTROL GRASSES AND WILLOW STAKES (
2. ONCE THE SYNTHETIC GEOGRID HAS BEEN INSTALLED, GEOCELLS WILL BE BACKFILLED WITH GRAVEL
SPECIFICATIONS.
1. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL 8-INCH TERRACELL SYNTHETIC GEOGRID AS PER THE MANUFACTURER'S
TERRACELL STRUCTURE NOTES:
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SYNTHETIC GEOGRID
8 IN TERRACELL
Wbkf = 16 ft
(SEE NOTES)
ARMORED POOL
DIAMETER, OR EQUIVALENT MATERIAL.
IN SIZE FROM 5" - 17" AVERAGE DIAMETER WITH THE MAJORITY OF MATERIAL HAVING 10" AVERAGE
3. NATURAL BED MATERIAL IS DEFINED AS MATERIAL OBTAINED FROM STOCKPILES AT THE SITE RANGING
AND SUITABLE NATURAL BED MATERIAL.
2. THE POOL AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DROP STRUCTURE WILL BE ARMORED WITH GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SPECIFICATIONS.
1. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL 8-INCH TERRACELL SYNTHETIC GEOGRID AS PER THE MANUFACTURER'S
TERRACELL STRUCTURE NOTES:
ELEVATION
WATER SURFACE
PROFILE
TR TERRACELL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
BR TERRACELL
SYNTHETIC GEOGRID
8 IN TERRACELL
LOG SILL
DROP STRUCTURE - TERRACELL HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
7/16/2018Heron_psh_02D.dgnBSmithTYPICALS 2D
SCALE: N.T.S.
PERMANMENT CROSSING
18" THICK MIN
CL 'I' RIP RAP
SELECT MATERIAL
COMPACTED
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
CROSSING (TYP)
PERMANENT STREAM
SECTION B-B'
A
A'
SCALE: N.T.S.
ENGINEERED RIFFLE
CL A RIP RAP
G
round
N
a
tu
ra
lGround
Natural
BANK SLOPE
CHANNEL
BANK SLOPE
AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER OR DESIGNER.
2) RIP RAP SIZE MAY BE ADJUSTED BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS
1) PLACE CLASS A RIP RAP IN CHANNEL AND ON BANK SLOPES.
NOTES:AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
0.5' DEPTH MIN
CL 'A' RIP RAP
(SIZE AS PER PLAN)
CMP PIPE
(SIZE AS PER PLAN)
CMP PIPE
SELECT MATERIAL
COMPACTED
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BURY PIPE 20%
SECTION A-A'
0.5' DEPTH MIN
CL 'A' RIP RAP
(SIZE AS PER PLAN)
CMP PIPE
BURY 20%
FLOODPLAIN PIPES
18" CMP
1' MIN
INDICATED ON PLANS.
3) INSTALL 18" CMP FLOODPLAIN PIPES IN FLOODPLAIN IF
MATTING ON EXPOSED SOILS.
2) IF UNABLE TO INSTALL WHILE LOCATION IS DRY, PLACE
LOCATION WITHIN STREAM HAS BEEN DEWATERED.
1) INSTALL PERMANENT CROSSING WHILE CONSTRUCTION
NOTES:EOG12" RCP12" RCPSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOU ND ARY
S
UR
VE
Y
B
OUNDAR
YDocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
UT3
UT1
UT2
UT1
SR 2351Bethel South Fork Rd
S
R
2
3
5
2Clar
k Rd CHATHAM COUNTYALAMANCE COUNTYUT8
UT5
UT6
UT4
UT7
South Fork Creek
ISS CAP 3
ISS CAP 2
500
ISS CAP
1200
ISS CAP
1201
ISS CAP
5801
ISS CAP 5800
ISS CAP
CONTROL POINTS 3
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_03.dgnBSmithISS CAP 1
0 300'150'300'
SCALE: 1"=600'
600'
CreekSouth Fork
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
UT3
UT1
UT2
UT1
SR 2351Bethel South Fork Rd
S
R
2
3
5
2Clar
k Rd
South Fork Creek
CHATHAM COUNTYALAMANCE COUNTYUT8
UT5
UT6
UT4
UT7
South Fork Creek
EASEMENT 3A
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_03A.dgnBSmith0 300'150'300'
SCALE: 1"=600'
600'
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
03 +50
550
545
540
535
530
[phone]+50 +50
540
545
535
530
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
550
UT 1
06 +50+5005+50 SEE SHEET 5MATCHLINE STA 6+50 -UT1-NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
S
E
E S
H
E
E
T 5MA
T
C
H
LIN
E S
T
A 6+50 -
U
T1-
SEE SHEET 6MATCHLINE
STRUCTURES 4
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_04.dgnBSmithELEV 544.89
STA 0+00
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT I
UT 1
PROP THALWEG
ELEV 541.07
STA 4+70.2
START RESTORATION
END ENHANCEMENT I
UT 1
R R
RESTORATION
DENOTES WETLAND
E E ENHANCEMENT
DENOTES WETLAND
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE
539
54054
1
541 541541541
541
541542
542
542542542
543
543543
543543543
544
544544
544544544
545
545
545
545545
545
545545545545546
546
546546546
547
547
547547547547547
548
548
548548548548548548
549
549
549549549549
550
550
550
550
5505505505505505
5
1
551551551551
551
551
551
552552552552552552
553
553553553
553
553553
554FORK RD (SR 2351)BETHEL SOUTHWIRE FENCEEIP
HADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
DB 3492 PG 0554
36" RCPSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 10+00UT 12+00UT 11+00 UT 13+00
UT 14+00UT 15+00
UT 16+00UT 22+00ELEV=544.89
STA 0+00
START ENHANCEMENT 1
UT 1 ELEV=541.07
STA 4+70
START RESTORATION
END ENHANCEMENT I
UT 1
BANKFULL
PROP
LOG VANE
LOG VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
VANE
LOG CROSS
1 EACH SIDEBURY 20%
FLOODPLAIN PIPE18" CMP
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
535
530
540
535
530 AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
UT 1
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 5
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_05.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET 4STA 6+50 UT 1MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 7
STA 2+00 UT 3
MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 6
STA 3+00 UT 2MATCHLINE
+50 07 +50 08 +50 09 +50 10 +50 11 +50 12 +50 13
UT 2
540
535
SEE SHEET 6STA 3+00 UT 2MATCHLINE+50 04
ELEV 539.13
STA 3+43 UT 2
START RESTORATION
END ENHANCEMENT II
UT 2
ELEV 538.82
STA 3+98.4 UT 2
END RESTORATION
UT 2
ELEV 534.19
STA 11+91.6 UT 1
STA 2+78.7 UT 3
END RESTORATION
UT 3
ELEV 538.82
STA 7+38.7 UT 1
STA 3+98.4 UT 2
END RESTORATION
UT 2
+50 03
535
530
SEE SHEET 7STA 2+00 UT 3MATCHLINEELEV 534.19
STA 2+78.7 UT 3
END RESTORATION
UT 3UT 3
ELEV 532.76
STA 13+05.9
END RESTORATION
UT 1
SEE SHEET 4STA 6+50 UT 1MATCHLINER R
RESTORATION
DENOTES WETLAND
E E ENHANCEMENT
DENOTES WETLAND
TREATMENT AREA
DENOTES MARSH*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
BURY ALL 20%
18" CMP (1 EACH SIDE)
FLOODPLAIN PIPE
2@ 36" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE
532533
533533533533534
534534534534534535535
535
535535535535
535535535535535535536
536
5365365365
3
6
536537
537537
537537537537537538
5
3
8538
538
5385385385395395395395395395395395395405
4
0
5405405405405405405405405405405
4
0
5405
4
0
540541541
541541541541
5
4
2542
542542543
543
54354554554660"
H
D
PEEOPEOPHADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
DB 3492 PG 0554COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTEASEMENTPIPELINECOLONIALWI
RE FENCESURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 18+00UT 17+00 UT 19+00UT 110+00UT 111+00UT 112+00UT 113+00ELEV=532.76
STA 13+05.9
END RESTORATION
UT 1
ELEV=538.82
STA 7+38.7 UT 1
STA 3+98.4 UT 2
END RESTORATION
UT 2
ELEV=534.19
STA 11+91.6 UT 1
STA 2+78.7 UT 3
END RESTORATION
UT 3
VANE
LOG CROSS
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
PROP BANKFULL
ELEV=539.20
STA 3+04.2
START RESTORATION
END ENHANCEMENT II
UT 2
12' GATE
GATE
12'
AREA
MARSH TREATMENT
1 EACH SIDE
BURY 20%
FLOODPLAIN PIPE
18" CMP
16' TOP WIDTH (TYP)
BURY 20%
2@36" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
RETAIN
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
02 +50
555
550
545
540
535
+50 03001+50
545
550
540
535
555
UT 2
SEE SHEET 5MATCHLINE STA 3+00 UT 2NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 6
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_06.dgnBSmithS
E
E S
H
E
E
T 5
S
T
A 3
+00
U
T 2MA
T
C
H
LI
N
E
S
E
E S
HE
E
T 4MAT
C
HLI
NE
STA 0+00
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT II
UT 2
THALWEGEXST
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE
539541541542
542542
543
543543544
544544545
545
545545545545545546546546547
547547548548
548549549549550550
550550551
551552
552553553553553554555555555556557557558
EASEMENTPIPELINECOLONIALEASEMENTPIPELINECOLONIALHADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
DB 3492 PG 0554
ISS CAP 3WIRE FENCESURV
EY

BOUNDA
RY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 21+00UT 20+00UT 22+00ELEV=544.89
STA 0+00
START ENHANCEMENT II
UT 2
V
A
N
E
LO
G

C
RO
S
S
E
L
E
V
=539.20S
T
A
3+04.2S
T
A
R
T

R
E
S
T
O
R
A
T
ION
E
N
D

E
N
H
A
N
C
EM
E
N
T
IIU
T
21 EA
C
H

S
ID
E
BU
RY
20%
F
LO
O
D
P
LA
IN

P
IP
E18" CM
P
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
01 +50
545
540
535
530
525
+50 020
535
540
530
525
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
545
UT 3
SEE SHEET 5MATCHLINE STA 2+00 UT 3NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDE AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 7
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_07.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET 5STA 2+00 UT 3MATCHLINETHALWEG
PROPOSED
ELEV 539.43
STA 0+00
BEGIN RESTORATION
UT 3
R R
RESTORATION
DENOTES WETLAND
TREATMENT AREA
DENOTES MARSH*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE
536537538
538539539
540540540
540
540
541
541
541542
542
542543
543543544544
544
544545545545
545
545
545
545545545545
546
546546
546546546546
546 547547
547
547547
547
547
547
547
547
547
548
548548548
548
548
548
548
549
549549
549
549 550550
550550550550
550
551
551
551551
551
551
552
552
552552
552
552
552
552
552
552
552
553
553
554
DB 3492 PG 0554
HADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
ISS CAP 1
EOP
EOP
SURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 110+00UT 113+00UT 30+00UT 31+00ELEV=539.43
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 3
LOG CROSS VANELOG CROSS VANEBANKFULL
PROP
VANE
LOG CROSS
AREA
MARSH TREATMENT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
03 +50+5000102+50 +50
530
535
525
520
540
UT 5
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 8
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_08.dgnBSmithS
E
E
S
HE
E
T
9
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 UT
5MAT
C
HLI
NE
ELEV 538.00
STA 0+00
BEGIN RESTORATION
UT 5
E E ENHANCEMENT
DENOTES WETLAND
TREATMENT AREA
DENOTES MARSH*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
540
535
530
525
520
04
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
06 +50+5005+50 SEE SHEET 9MATCHLINE STA 5+00 UT 5BURY 20%
2@24" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE 525525
526526527
527 528
528528
529
529529
529530530
530530
53053053053 1531531531
532532
532532532
532
533
533533533533
533534
534534534535535535535
535536536536537537538538538539539539540540540540540
540540
540541
541
541541
541
542
542542542
543
543543544
544545545545
545545545546
546546
546547
547548
548549
549549 550550
550550550
550
550
551
551552
553
553
555
EOG
EOG
12" RCP12" RCP
WIRE FENCE
WIRE FENCE
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
SURVEY BOUNDARY
S
UR
VE
Y B
O
U
N
D
AR
Y
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 50+00UT 51+00UT 52+00UT 53+00UT 54+00UT 55+00ELEV=538.00
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 5
BANKFULL
PROP
LOG VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
GATES
2@12'
GATES
2@12'
AREA
TREATMENT
MARSH
29' TOP WIDTH (TYP)
BURY 20%
2@24" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 9
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_09.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET 10STA 11+00 -UT 5-MATCHLINEE E ENHANCEMENT
DENOTES WETLAND
SEE SHEET 8
STA 5+00 -UT 5-
MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 11
STA 3+50 -UT 4-MATCHLINE
08 +50
515
510
515
510
[phone]+50 +50
520
525
515
510
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
530
11+5010+50
UT 5
SEE SHEET 10STA 10+00 UT 5MATCHLINEELEV 510.85
STA 9+52.5
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT II
END RESTORATION
UT 5
SEE SHEET 8MATCHLINE STA 5+00 UT 5THALWEGEXST SEE SHEET 11STA 3+50 UT 4MATCHLINE+5004
ELEV 513.88
STA 9+10.5 UT 5
STA 4+49.6 UT 4
END RESTORATION
UT 4
ELEV 513.88
STA 4+49.6
END RESTORATION
UT 4UT 4
505
THALWEG
PROPOSED
THALWEG
PROPOSED
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE 5085 0 8510
510511
511512
512512513513
513513514
514
5145145 14
515
515
5
1
5
515515515515515516
516516516516 516517
517
517517517518
518
5185185
1
8
5 18518 519
519
5195195 19 520520
520
520
520
520520520521
521
521521522
522
5225225 2 2
5 2 2
523
523
523523524524524
524524525525
525525525
5255255 2 5525525 526526526
5265 2 6
5 2 6
5 2 6527
527
5275285285 2 8
529529529
530
530530530530530531 531531531
5 3 1
5 3 1
5315 3 1
5 3 1
5 3 1
5 3 1
5 3 1
5
3
2
5325325 3 2532
5 3 2 5325 3 2
5 3 2
5 3 2
5 3 2
5 3 2 5 3 2532532
5 3 2
5 3 2
5 3 2 5 3 2
5
3
3
5 3 3
5 3 3 534534
535
5 3 5
5 3 5
5 3 5
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
WIRE
FENCE
WIRE FENCEWI
RE FENCEWIRE FENCEISS CAP 500
SURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYUT
43+00UT 44+00UT 56+00UT 57+00UT 58+00UT 59+00UT 510+00ELEV=513.88
STA 9+10.5 UT 5
STA 4+49.6 UT 4
END RESTORATION
UT 4
ELEV=538.00
STA 9+52.5
START ENHANCEMENT II
END RESTORATION
UT 5
LOG VANE
LOG VANE
PROP BANKFULL
LOG VANE
VANE
LOG CROSS
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
VANE
LOG CROSS
BANKFULL
PROP
BANKFULL
PROP
STRUCTURE
DROP
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 10
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_10.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET 9
STA 11+00 -UT 5-
MATCHLINE
13 +50
515
510
505
500
495
+50 1412+50
505
510
500
495
515
UT 5
15+5011SEE SHEET 9MATCHLINE STA 11+00 -UT 5-THALWEGEXST
STA 14+90.4
END ENHANCEMENT II
-UT 5-
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE
498
499499499499
500500500500500500500501501501
501501501502502502502
502503503503503
503
503503
504504
504504504
5055
0
5505505505
505505505505505505 505505505
505
505
505
505
505
505505
505
505 505505
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
505505
505
505
505
506
5065065065065065065
0
6506
506506
506506
506
506
506
506
506
506506506
506
506
506
506
506
506506
506
506506
506
506
506
506
506
506506506506506
506
506
506
506
506 506506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506506
506506
506
506506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
507
507507507
507
507
507
507
507
507
5
0
7
507
507
507
507
507
507
507
507507
507 507507
507507
507
507
507507
507
507
507
508508
508508
508
509
509509509509
509510
510510510
510510510511511511512
512513513514 515515
515516 517517518518519520522523524524
525525527528529529
529530530532535
536 FLOOD ZONEPRELIM 100 YRF
L
OOD
Z
ONE
P
R
E
LI
M
10
0 YR
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
S
OUT
H F
OR
K
C
R
E
E
KSURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 511+00
UT 512+00 UT 513+00UT 514+00STA 14+90.4
END ENHANCEMENT II
UT 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
03 +50
530
525
520
515
510
+5000102+50 +50
520
525
515
510
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
530
UT 4
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDE
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 11
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_11.dgnBSmithTREATMENT AREA
DENOTES MARSH*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*SEE SHEET 9STA 3+50 -UT 4-MATCHLINESEE SHEET 9MATCHLINE STA 3+50 -UT 4-ELEV=522.76
STA 0+00
BEGIN RESTORATION
-UT 4-
THALWEG
PROPOSED
BURY 20%
2@24" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE515516517518
518518519
519519
520
520520521
521521
522
522522522
523
523
523523524
524524524524 525525
525
525525525525525525525525525
526
526
526526526526527
527
527527527527527527
527
527
5
2
8
528528528528528
528
5
2
9
529
529529529529
529 530530
530530530530530530
530
530531
531531531532
532532532532 533533533533534
534534534534
535
535535535535535535
535
536536537537537
537
538538538539540540541542543544544545545546546
546
546
D
B 1195 P
G 0905
RE
V
O
C T
R
UST
H
A
DLE
Y, PE
G
G
Y J. C
HEE
K
RE
V
O
C T
R
UST
H
A
DLE
Y, R
USSELL
B.
WIRE FENCE
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
WIRE FENCE
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY
BOUNDARYUT 40+00UT 41+00UT 42+00UT 43+00ELEV=522.76
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 4
L
O
G
V
A
NE
L
O
G
C
R
OSS
V
A
NE
B
A
N
KF
ULL
PR
OP
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG VANE
LOG VANE
PROP BANKFULL
AREA
MARSH TREATMENT
16' TOP WIDTH (TYP)
BURY 20%
2@24" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
520
515
510
505
500
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 12
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_12.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET 13STA 5+00 -UT 6-
MATCHLINE
03 +50+50 0400102+50 +50
510
515
505
500
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
520
UT 6
05+50
ELEV=518.50
STA 0+00
BEGIN RESTORATION
-UT 6-
PROPOSED THALWEG
E E ENHANCEMENT
DENOTES WETLAND
SEE SHEET 13MATCHLINE STA 5+00 -UT 6-WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE
Y=765921.5416
X=1893138.1386
Y=765910.2761
X=1893150.8912
504505506
507
507507508508
508509
509509510
510
510510
510510511
511
511511512
512
512512513
513
513513514
514
514514515
515
515
515
515515515516
516
516516517
517
517
517517517 518518
518
518518519
519
519
519519520
520
520
520
520520520520520521
521
521
521521521522
522
522522523
523
523523524
524524524525525
525
525525525526
526526527
527527528
528528
529
529530530
530530530530
531532532533533534535
536536 FLOOD ZONE
PRELIM 100 YR
FLOOD ZONEPRELI
M 100 YRDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
SURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARY
SU
RV
EY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 60+00UT 61+00UT 62+00UT 63+00UT 64+00ELEV=518.50
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 6
PROP BANKFULL
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG VANE LOG VANE
LOG VANE
STRUCTURE
DROP
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
07 +50
520
515
510
505
500
[phone]+50
510
515
505
500
520
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 13
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_13.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET 12STA 5+00 -UT 6-MATCHLINE
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
UT 6
SEE SHEET 12MATCHLINE STA 5+00 -UT 6-ELEV=500.88
STA 7+80.9
END RESTORATION
-UT 6-
PROPOSED THALWEG
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE 498
498499499499499499499499499500500
5
0
0500500500500500500 500501
501
5015
0
1
501501
501501
5025025025025
0
2502
502502503503
5035
0
3503
503503503503503503503503503503504
5
0
4
5045045045
04
504504504504504504504504504504504504504504504
504504
504504
504504504
504504
504504504504504505505505505505505
505505505505
5
0
5
5055055
0
5505 505505505505505505505505505505505505505505505505506506506506506506506506
506506506506506506506507507507
507507507507508508508508509509509510510510510510510511511511512512
513514515515515516516517517
518519520520521522523524527529530FLOOD ZONEPRELIM 100 YRF
LOOD ZONEP
RELI
M
1
0
0 YRWIRE F E NCE
WIRE FENCE
WIRE FENCEWIRE FENCEDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.COL
ONI
AL
PIP
E
LI
NE
E
AS
E
ME
NTCOLONIAL
PI
P
E
LI
NE
E
AS
E
ME
NT
SOUTH FORK CREEKSURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 66+00UT 67+00ELEV=500.88
STA 7+80.9
END RESTORATION
UT 6
DROP STRUCTURE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
03 +50
515
510
505
500
495
[phone]+50 +50 05+50
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 14
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_14.dgnBSmithS
E
E
S
HE
E
T
15
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 -UT
7-MAT
C
HLI
NE
505
510
500
495
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
515
UT 7
SEE SHEET 14MATCHLINE STA 5+00 -UT 7-ELEV=525.74
STA 0+00
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT I
-UT 7-
PROPOSED THALWEG
R R
RESTORATION
DENOTES WETLAND
E E ENHANCEMENT
DENOTES WETLAND
TREATMENT AREA
DENOTES MARSH*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
BURY 20%
2@24" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE511512513514515515515516516517517517
518
518518519519
519519520520
520
520
520520520521
521
521522522
522522
523
523
523524524 525525
525
525525526
526 527527
527527 528528
528528528
529
5
2
9
5
2
9529530
530530530
530530531531
531531532
5
3
2
532532
532 533533533533
533534
534534534
5355
3
5
535535535536536537537538
538
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
S
U
R
V
E
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 70+00UT 71+00UT 72+00UT 73+00UT 74+00ELEV=525.74
STA 0+00
START ENHANCEMENT 1
UT 7
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
PROP BANKFULL
12' GATE
12' GATE
AREA
TREATMENT
MARSH
16' TOP WIDTH (TYP)
BURY 20%
2@24" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
505
500
495
505
510
500
495
515
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 15
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_15.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET 14STA 5+00 -UT 7-MATCHLINE09 +50
515
510
[phone]+50 +50
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
UT 7
10+50
ELEV=495.38
STA 9+96.2
END ENHANCEMENT I
-UT 7-SEE SHEET 14MATCHLINE STA 5+00 -UT 7-PROPOSED THALWEG
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE4964964964974974974974
9
7
497
497
498
498498499
499499500
500500500
5 0 0 500500500501501501501501501502502502502502502
502
502502502
503503503503
503
5 0 3
503
503
503
504
504504504504504
504
504
504
505
505505
505505505 505505505
506506506506
506 507507
507507508
508508509509
509509509
510510510
510
510510510511
511
511512
512
512513
5135 1 4
514515515515
515515516517
517518518
FLOOD ZONE
PRELIM 100 YR
F
L
OOD
Z
ONE
P
RE
LI
M
10
0 YR
RISERPSNC PLATIC
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.WI
RE FENCESOUTH FORK CREEKSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 76+00UT 77+00UT 78+00UT 79+00ELEV=495.38
STA 9+96.2
END ENHANCEMENT 1
UT 7
PROP BANKFULL
LOG CROSS VANE
DROP STRUCTURE
12' GATE
12' GATE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
530
525
520
515
510
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 16
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_16.dgnBSmithS
E
E
S
HE
E
T
17
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 -UT
8-MAT
C
HLI
NE
03 +50+50 0400102+50 +50
520
525
515
510
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
530
UT 8
05+50 SEE SHEET 17MATCHLINE STA 5+00 -UT 8-ELEV=522.06
STA 0+00
BEGIN RESTORATION
-UT 8-
PROPOSED THALWEG
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE514
515515515
516516516
517517517
518518 518
518518518519519519
520520520520520
520
520
520520521521521521
522522522
522
522522522522
522522522523523523
523 523
5245245
2
4
524 524
524525525525525525
525 525 525 525 525
5255265 2 6 526 526
527527527
5
2
7 527
528528528 528 528
528528529529529
529 529
530530530530
530
530 530
5305
30531531531
531
531531531531532532532
532
532
532532532533533 5335335335335345
3
4 534
534534534534534534535535535 535
535 535
535535535
535535535535535535536536536
536536536537
537537538538539
DB 3004 PG 0810
REVOC TRUST
LINDLEY, DARRYL M.
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
EIP
ALLEN, DANNY T.
DB 512 PG 676
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 80+00UT 81+00UT 82+00UT 83+00
UT 84+00ELEV=522.06
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 8
PROP BANKFULL
LOG VANE LOG VANE
LOG VANE
LOG VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG CROSS VANE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
525
520
515
510
505
515
520
510
505
525
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
STRUCTURES 17
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_17.dgnBSmith08 +50+50 09050607+50 +50
AT PROP THALWEG
EXST GROUND
UT 8
SEE SHEET 16MATCHLINE STA 5+00 -UT 8-ELEV=511.43
STA 6+09.0
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT II
END RESTORATION
-UT 8-
PROPOSED THALWEG
THALWEGEXST
S
E
E
S
HE
E
T
16
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 -UT
8-MAT
C
HLI
NE
STA 8+56.9
END ENHANCEMENT II
-UT 8-
WITHIN EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
ALL EXISTING WIRE FENCE502502502503503504504
505
505505505506506506
506506506506 506506506506506506506506506507
507507507507 507507507507507507507507508508508508508508508508508508508508508508508508509509
5095095095105105
1
0510
510510510511511
511511512512512
512512512512513513
513513513513514514514514514
515515515515515515
515
515515515516516516 516517517517
517
518518518518
518
519519519519 519520520520520520520
520 520520520521521521521521522522522
522
522522523523523 523523523523523 5245245245245245245245255255255255255255255
2
5526526
526527528
528529
530
530
531
531531531532
533
533533534
535
FLOOD ZONEPRELI
M
1
00 YRFLOOD ZONE
PRELIM 100 YR
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.COLONI
AL PI
PELI
NE EASEMENTCOLONI
AL PI
PELI
NE EASEMENTCREEKSOUTH FORKSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY
BOUNDARY SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 84+00UT 86+00UT 87+00UT 88+00ELEV=511.43
STA 6+09.0
START ENHANCEMENT II
END RESTORATION
UT 8
ELEV=506.64
STA 8+56.9
END ENHANCEMENT II
UT 8
DROP STRUCTURE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
EROSION CONTROL NOTES
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EROSION CONTROL

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
E-2
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E02 (notes).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
EROSION CONTROL NOTES
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EROSION CONTROL

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
E-2A
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E02a (notes).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
EROSION CONTROL NOTES
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EROSION CONTROL

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
E-2B
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E02b (notes).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
NOTES:
C
O
NST
R
U
CTIO
N
A
RE
A
OF
A
CTIVE
EXISTING CHANNEL
FLEXIBLE HOSE
TEMPORARY
PUMP-AROUND PUMP FLOWTYPICAL PUMP-AROUND OPERATION
DISSIPATION PAD
RIP RAP
P-1
PDA-1
(SEE DETAIL)
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE DETAIL)
SEDIMENT BAG
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
6. RIP RAP DISSIPATION PAD TO BE INSTALLED DOWNSTREAM OF LOWER
TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA.
5. PUMPS AND HOSES SHALL BE OF A SUFFICIENT SIZE AND NUMBER
DIVERSION PIPES, PUMPS, AND HOSES.
TO THE WORK, THIS INCLUDES POLYETHYLENE SHEETING,
4. MAINTENANCE OF STREAM FLOW OPERATIONS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL
DOCUMENTS.
AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
MATTED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. ALL OTHER GRADED
3. ALL GRADED STREAM BANKS SHALL BE SEEDED, MULCHED, AND
STREAM FLOW WHEN NECESSARY
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES ARE TO BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK FROM
SECTIONS OF CHANNEL
1. ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY OR ISOLATED
NOTES:
PUMP
DEWATERING
A A
BLANKET
FILTER
PLAN VIEW
LENGTH WIDTH
(Y/N)(IN)
PERMANENT
La (FT)Wo (FT)
STONE SIZE
d50 (IN)
STONE CLASS THICKNESS
(IN)
N 3 A 12
RIP RAP DISIPATION PAD SPECIFICATIONS
T=12"
HOSE SIZE
4"4.0 1.0
ASSUMED
4.0 FT
PIPE
EXISTING
RIPRAP DISSIPATION PAD
INSTALLED BETWEEN THE RIPRAP AND SOIL FOUNDATION.
4. A FILTER BLANKET OR FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE
UP THE CHANNEL BANKS TO THE TOP OF THE BANK.
3. IN A WELL-DEFINED CHANNEL EXTEND THE APRON
2. T = THICKNESS
1. La IS THE LENGTH OF THE RIPRAP APRON.
SECTION A-A
(SEE DETAIL)
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
AND MULCH.
8. REMOVE SEDIMENT BAG(S) AND BACKFILL. STABILIZE DISTURBED AREA WITH SEED
DETERMINING THE LOCATION OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES.
WORK FOR EACH STREAM SEGMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ONLY REPRESENT THE UPPER AND LOWER EXTENT OF
AROUND AREAS BETWEEN THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES. THE IMPERVIOUS LOCATIONS AS
7. ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE PUMP
AND DISSIPATION PAD (BEGIN WITH DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE FIRST).
IMPERVIOUS DIKES. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE,
6. EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF
5. PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS.
AREA.
4. INSTALL SEDIMENT BAG AND ASSOCIATED PUMP. DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED
3. PLACE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
2. PLACE UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE, DOWNSTREAM RIP RAP DISSIPATION PAD, AND
1. INSTALL UPSTREAM PUMP AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR TYPICAL PUMP-AROUND:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EROSION CONTROL TYPICAL

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
E-3
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E03 (typ).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:

STREAM BED
2
1
2
1
BASE OF STREAM
TOP OF BANK
1'
1'-6" MIN.
3'MAX.
CROSS SECTION VIEW
TOP VIEW
FRONT VIEW
BANK
TOP OF
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
CONTROL STONE
SEDIMENT
STONE
STRUCTURAL FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
IMPERVIOUS
2' MIN.
DOWNSTREAM OF IMP. DIKE.
STONE 5' UPSTREAM AND 10'
5. LINE BANKS WITH CLASS B
MATERIAL
4. TOE IN IMPERVIOUS
DEPTH.
OF 1 FT. ABOVE NORMAL FLOW
3. CONSTRUCT DAM A MAXIMUM
STONE FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL.
2. USE NO. 5 OR NO. 57
STRUCTURAL STONE.
1. USE CLASS B STONE FOR
NOTES:
15' MINIMUM
STREAMPUMP HOSE
EXISTING GROUND
SEDIMENT BAG
INSTALLATION:
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SEDIMENT BAG
(12" THICK)
CLASS B STONE
ATTRIBUTES.
4. REFER TO DETAIL REGARDING GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
FABRIC.
THE CONTENTS SEEDED AFTER REMOVING VISIBLE
DESIGNER. IF ALLOWED, BAG MAY BE CUT OPEN AND
3. DISPOSE OF SEDIMENT BAG AS DIRECTED BY THE SITE
STRAPS.
TO RUPTURE OR FAILURE OF THE HOSE ATTACHMENT
OVERFILLING WITH SEDIMENT WILL CAUSE THE BAG
MINUTE. USE OF EXCESSIVE FLOW RATES OR
ACCOMMODATE FLOW RATES OF 1100 GALLONS PER
CIRCUMSTANCES THE SEDIMENT BAG WILL
SLOPE ON WHICH THE BAG LIES. UNDER MOST
SUBSTANCE UNDER THE BAG AND THE DEGREE OF THE
BAG, THE TYPE OF GROUND, ROCK OR OTHER
AND AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT DISCHARGED INTO THE
DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF SEDIMENT BAG, THE TYPE
REASONABLE RATE. FLOW RATES WILL VARY
FILTER SEDIMENT OR ALLOW WATER TO PASS AT A
2. BAG IS FULL WHEN IT NO LONGER CAN EFFICIENTLY
THROUGH THE SURFACE AREA OF THE BAG.
GRAVEL BED IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE WATER FLOW
EFFICIENCY OF FILTRATION, PLACE THE BAG ON A
WITHOUT CREATING MORE EROSION. TO INCREASE THE
INCOMING WATER FLOWS DOWNHILL THROUGH BAG
1. INSTALL SEDIMENT BAG ON A SLOPE SO
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EROSION CONTROL TYPICAL

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
E-3A
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E03A (typ).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
ADJOINING ROADWAY
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC
8"
4"
SILT FENCE
FLOW
STEEL POST - 2'-0" DEPTH
GRADE
ABOVE EX
6" MIN100' MI
N4' MAX.4' MAX.
FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTED FILL
BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY.
5. ANY MATERIAL WHICH FINDS ITS WAY ONTO THE ADJACENT ROADWAY MUST
TOP DRESSING WITH STONE MAY BE NECESSARY.
TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO ADJACENT ROADWAYS. PERIODIC
4. ENTRANCE(S) MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT
CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES.
3. ENTRANCE(S) SHOULD BE LOCATED AS TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM UTILITY BY ALL
2. TURNING RADIUS SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMODATE LARGE TRUCKS.
1. USE CLASS 'A' STONE ON PAD. PAD TO BE MINIMUM 100' LONG x 12' WIDE x 6" DEEP.
NOTES:
INTO TRENCH
EXTENSION OF FABRIC
INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS.
FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY
WITH A MINIMUM FLOW RATE OF 0.3 GAL/FT/MIN.
STRENGTH (50 LB/LIN. INCH MINIMUM) AND
PROPYLENE, OR ETHYLENE YARN WITH EXTRA
4. FILTER FABRIC TO BE NYLON, POLYESTER,
WITH OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST.
FASTEN THE FABRIC AT A SUPPORT POST
3. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY
STEEL TYPE.
AND BE OF THE SELF-FASTENER ANGLE
2. STEEL POST SHALL BE 5'-0" IN HEIGHT
FASTENED SECURELY TO THE POSTS.
OF 36" IN WIDTH AND SHALL BE
1. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE A MINIMUM
NOTES: 10' MIN
CLASS 'A' STONE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EROSION CONTROL TYPICAL

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
E-3B
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E03B (typ).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
+/-108
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
LENGTH VARIES
ROUGH CUT TIMBER
12"x12" +/-
LENGTH VARIES
ROUGH CUT TIMBER
12"x12" +/-
LENGTH VARIES
ROUGH CUT TIMBER
12"x12" +/-
5' MIN
12' MAX
5' MIN
AS APPROPRIATE
BOLTED TOGETHER
LOG MAT BRIDGE
LOG MAT BRIDGE
SECTION THROUGH
PLAN VIEW
CROSS SECTION VIEW
IS AT CONTRACTORS DISCRETION.
PURPOSES. USE OF LOG MAT BRIDGE
DETAIL PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL
NOTE:
FLOW
CHANNEL
STREAM
25 FT. MIN.
TOP OF BANK
25 FT. MIN.
TOP OF BANK
IS GREATER
OR 18 IN. WHICHEVER
• DIAMETER OF PIPE
3" STONE
3" STONE
PLAN VIEW
PROFILE VIEW
STREAM CROSSING
TEMPORARY CULVERTED
NOT FOR USE IN RESTORED STREAMS.
NOTE: FOR USE IN EXISTING CHANNELS ONLY.
METAL PIPE
CORRUGATED
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EROSION CONTROL TYPICAL

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
E-3C
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E03C (typ).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:FLOW
NOTES:
TYPICAL MATTING LOCATION
ELEVATION
PROPOSED BANKFULL
ELEVATION
WATER SURFACE
PROPOSED
BEYOND BANKFULL
TO MINIMUM 1 FT.
FROM TOE OF CHANNEL
COIR FIBER MATTING
AS NECESSARY.
BE MADE AT THE DESIGNERS OR CONTRACTORS DISCRETION
-FIELD ADJUSTMENTS TO MATTING LOCATION MAY
AND ALONG BOTH SIDES OFTHE CHANNEL IN TANGENT AREAS.
PLACED ALONG THE OUTSIDE BANK OF ALL BENDS
-MEDIUM WEIGHT WOVEN COIR FIBER MATTING SHALL BE
ELEVATION
BANKFULL
6" MIN
COIR MATTING CROSS SECTION
STRAW MULCH
1 FT. MIN.
COIR FIBER MATTING
NORMAL WATER
BED MATERIAL
BACKFILL
OVERLAP
6" MIN
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
BACKFILLED WITH EXCAVATED MATERIAL.
WITH MATTING LAID FLAT AND STAKED. TRENCH TO BE
MINIMUM 1' WIDE, 6" DEEP TRENCH OVER TOP OF BANK
DIRECTED BY MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
USE 12" WOODEN STAKES ON 5' CENTERS OR AS
FROM WORKING OFF OF STAKE.
WITH GALVANIZED NAIL BENT TO PROHIBIT MATTING
SECURE TOE OF MATTING WITH 24" WOODEN STAKES
GROUND
EXISTING
STRAW WATTLE
STRAW WATTLE
GROUND
EXISTING
CHANNEL
TRENCH3"1' MIN
STRAW WATTLE
4. STRAW SHALL BE CERTIFIED WEED FREE.
STAKES, SPACE AT 5' MAXIMUM.
3. SECURE STRAW WATTLE WITH 1"x2"x18" WOODEN
OF BANKFULL CHANNEL.
2. INSTALL STRAW WATTLE ALONG TOP
MAY NEED ADDITIONAL RUNOFF PROTECTION.
OF THE CONTRACTOR OR DESIGNER IN AREAS THAT
1. STRAW WATTLE TO BE INSTALLED AT THE DISCRETION
NOTES:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EROSION CONTROL TYPICAL

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
E-3D
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E03D (typ).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DATE:
DD
DDDDIMENSION
VARIABLE
‚ WIRE MESH
SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
‚ WIRE MESH
WATER FLOW
1 ft min
2:1
2 ft
2 ft
3 ft
‚ WIRE MESH
SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
1 ft min
*
SPECIAL SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE BREAK
D2 ft DEPTH
STEEL POST -
4. SPACE POST A MAXIMUM OF 3 FT.
STEEL POST 2 FT. DEEP MINIMUM.
3. INSTALL 5 FT. SELF FASTENER ANGLE
MESH WITH 1/4 INCH MESH OPENINGS.
2. USE HARDWARE CLOTH 24 GAUGE WIRE
FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE.
1. USE NO. 5 OR NO. 57 STONE
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
BY CONTRACTOR OR DESIGNER.
DIRECTED ON PLANS AND AS DEEMED NECESSARY
TO RELIEVE ACCUMULATION OF RUNOFF AS
FENCE AS A BREAK IN TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
-INSTALL 9 FT SECTION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL
NOTE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EROSION CONTROL TYPICAL

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
E-3E
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E03E (typ).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
UT3
UT1
UT2
UT1
SR 2351Bethel South Fork Rd
S
R
2
3
5
2Clar
k Rd
South Fork Creek
CHATHAM COUNTYALAMANCE COUNTYUT8
UT5
UT6
UT4
UT7
South Fork Creek
HAUL ROADS E-3F
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E03F (typ).dgnBSmithHAUL ROAD
HAUL ROAD
HAUL ROAD
HAUL ROAD AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
DATE:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
S
E
E S
H
E
E
T
E5MA
T
C
H
LIN
E S
T
A 6+50 -
U
T1-
SEE SHEET E6MATCHLINE
EROSION CONTROL E4
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E04.dgnBSmithTEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
BREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
539
54054
1
541 541541541
541
541542
542
542542542
543
543543
543543543
544
544544
544544544
545
545
545
545545
545
545545545545546
546
546546546
547
547
547547547547547
548
548
548548548548548548
549
549
549549549549
550
550
550
550
5505505505505505
5
1
551551551551
551
551
551
552552552552552552
553
553553553
553
553
553553
554
554
555
FORK RD (SR 2351)BETHEL SOUTHWIRE FENCEEIP
HADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
DB 3492 PG 0554
36" RCPSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 10+00UT 12+00UT 11+00 UT 13+00
UT 14+00UT 15+00
UT 16+00UT 22+00ELEV=544.89
STA 0+00
START ENHANCEMENT 1
UT 1 ELEV=541.07
STA 4+70
START RESTORATION
END ENHANCEMENT I
UT 1
1 EACH SIDEBURY 20%
FLOODPLAIN PIPE18" CMP
HAUL ROAD
HAUL ROAD
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DIKEIMP.
P-3D
DIKE
IMP.DP-2DIKE
IMPERVIOUS
DIKE
IMP.DP-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
SEE SHEET E4STA 6+50 UT 1MATCHLINE SEE SHEET E7
STA 2+00 UT 3
MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET E6
STA 3+00 UT 2MATCHLINE
EROSION CONTROL E5
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E05.dgnBSmithTEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
BREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
532533
533533533533534
534534534534534535535
535
535535535535
535535535535535535536
536
5365365365
3
6
536537
537537
537537537537537538
5
3
8538
538
5385385385395395395395395395395395395405
4
0
5405405405405405405405405405405
4
0
5405
4
0
540541541
541541541541
5
4
2542
542542543
543
54354554554660"
H
D
PEEOPEOPHADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
DB 3492 PG 0554COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTEASEMENTPIPELINECOLONIALWI
RE FENCESURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 18+00UT 17+00 UT 19+00UT 110+00UT 111+00UT 112+00UT 113+00ELEV=532.76
STA 13+05.9
END RESTORATION
UT 1
ELEV=538.82
STA 7+38.7 UT 1
STA 3+98.4 UT 2
END RESTORATION
UT 2
ELEV=534.19
STA 11+91.6 UT 1
STA 2+78.7 UT 3
END RESTORATION
UT 3
ELEV=539.20
STA 3+04.2
START RESTORATION
END ENHANCEMENT II
UT 2
AREA
MARSH TREATMENT
1 EACH SIDE
BURY 20%
FLOODPLAIN PIPE
18" CMP
16' TOP WIDTH (TYP)
BURY 20%
2@36" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
RETAIN
HAUL ROADHAUL ROADHAUL ROADDISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DIST
U
R
B
A
N
CE
LI
MITS
OF
P-9
DIKE
IMP.D DDIKE
IMP.
P-10
DIKE
IMP.DP-7
D
DIKE
IMP.DDIKE
IMP.
P-6
DDIKE
IMP.
P-5
P-4 DDIKE
IMP.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
S
E
E S
H
E
E
T
E5
S
T
A 3
+00
U
T 2MA
T
C
H
LI
N
E
S
E
E S
HE
E
T
E4MAT
C
HLI
NE
EROSION CONTROL E6
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E06.dgnBSmithTEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
BREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
539541541542
542542
543
543543544
544544545
545
545545545545545546546546547
547547548548
548549549549550550
550550551
551552
552553553553553554555555555556557557558
EASEMENTPIPELINECOLONIALEASEMENTPIPELINECOLONIALHADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
DB 3492 PG 0554
ISS CAP 3WIRE FENCESURV
EY

BOUNDA
RY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 21+00UT 20+00UT 22+00ELEV=544.89
STA 0+00
START ENHANCEMENT II
UT 2
V
A
N
E
LO
G

C
RO
S
S
E
L
E
V
=539.20S
T
A
3+04.2S
T
A
R
T

R
E
S
T
O
R
A
T
ION
E
N
D

E
N
H
A
N
C
EM
E
N
T
IIU
T
21 EA
C
H

S
ID
E
BU
RY
20%
F
LO
O
D
P
LA
IN

P
IP
E18" CM
P
HAUL ROADDISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF DD
IK
EIM
P
.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
SEE SHEET E5STA 2+00 UT 3MATCHLINEEROSION CONTROL E7
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E07.dgnBSmithTEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
BREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
536537538
538539539
540540540
540
540
541
541
541542
542
542543
543543544544
544
544545545545
545
545
545
545545545545
546
546546
546546546546
546 547547
547
547547
547
547
547
547
547
547
548
548548548
548
548
548
548
549
549549
549
549 550550
550550550550
550
551
551
551551
551
551
552
552
552552
552
552
552
552
552
552
552
553
553
554
DB 3492 PG 0554
HADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
ISS CAP 1
EOP
EOP
SURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 110+00UT 113+00UT 30+00UT 31+00ELEV=539.43
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 3
AREA
MARSH TREATMENT
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF DDIKE
IMPERVIOUS
P-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
S
E
E
S
HE
E
T
E
9
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 UT
5MAT
C
HLI
NE
EROSION CONTROL E8
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E08.dgnBSmithTEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
BREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE525525526526527
527 528
528528
529
529529
529530530
530530
530530530
53053 1531531531
532532
532532532532
532
533
533533533533
533
534
534534534
534534535535535535535
535536536536537537537537538538538539539539540540540540540540540540
540541
541
541541
541
542
542542542
543
543543544
544545545545
545545545546
546546
546547
547548
548549
549549 550550
550550550
550
550
551
551552
553
553
555
EOG
EOG
12" RCP12" RCP
WIRE FENCE
WIRE FENCE
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
SURVEY BOUNDARY
S
UR
VE
Y B
O
U
N
D
AR
Y
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 50+00UT 51+00UT 52+00UT 53+00UT 54+00UT 55+00ELEV=538.00
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 5
AREA
TREATMENT
MARSH
29' TOP WIDTH (TYP)
BURY 20%
2@24" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
HAUL ROAD
HAUL ROADDISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DDIKE
IMPERVIOUS
P-13
DP-12
DIKE
IMP.DDIKE
IMPERVIOUS
P-11
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
EROSION CONTROL E9
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E09.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET E10STA 11+00 -UT 5-MATCHLINESEE SHEET E11
STA 3+50 -UT 4-MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET E8
STA 5+00 -UT 5-
MATCHLINE
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
BREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE508508510510511511512512512513513513513514
514
5145145 14
515
515
5
1
5
515515515515515516
516516516516 516517
517
517517517518
518
5185185
1
8
5 18518 519
519
5195195 19 520520
520
520
520
520520520521
521
521521522
522
5225225 2 2
5 2 2
523
523
523523524524524
5245245 2 4
525525
525525525
5255255 2 5525525 526526526
5265 2 6
5 2 6
5 2 6527
527
5275285285 2 8
529529529
530
530530530530530531 531531531
5 3 1
5 3 1
5315 3 1
5 3 1
5 3 1
5 3 1
5 3 1
5
3
2
5325325 3 2532
5 3 2 5325 3 2
5 3 2
5 3 2
5 3 2
5 3 2 5 3 2532532
5 3 2
5 3 2
5 3 2 5 3 2
5
3
3
5 3 3
5 3 3 534534
535
5 3 5535
5 3 5
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
WIRE
FENCE
WIRE FENCEWI
RE FENCEWIRE FENCEISS CAP 500
SURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYUT
43+00UT 44+00UT 56+00UT 57+00UT 58+00UT 59+00UT 510+00ELEV=513.88
STA 9+10.5 UT 5
STA 4+49.6 UT 4
END RESTORATION
UT 4
ELEV=538.00
STA 9+52.5
START ENHANCEMENT II
END RESTORATION
UT 5
HAUL
ROADHAUL ROADDISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF DIKE
IMP.DDDIKE
IMPERVIOUS
P-16
P-17DDIKE
IMP.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
SEE SHEET E9
STA 11+00 -UT 5-
MATCHLINE
EROSION CONTROL E10
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E10.dgnBSmith498
499499499499
500500500500500500500501501501
501501501502502502502
502503503503503
503
503503
504504
504504504
5055
0
5505505505
505505505505505505 505505505
505
505
505
505
505
505505
505
505 505505
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
505505
505
505
505
506
5065065065065065065
0
6506
506506
506506
506
506
506
506
506
506506506
506
506
506
506
506
506506
506
506506
506
506
506
506
506
506506506506506
506
506
506
506
506 506506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506506
506506
506
506506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
507
507507507
507
507
507
507
507
507
5
0
7
507
507
507
507
507
507
507
507507
507 507507
507507
507
507
507507
507
507
507
508508
508508
508
509
509509509509
509510
510510510
510510510511511511512
512513513514 515515
515516 517517518518519520522523524524
525525527528529529
529530530532535
536 FLOOD ZONEPRELIM 100 YRF
L
OOD
Z
ONE
P
R
E
LI
M
10
0 YR
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
S
OUT
H F
OR
K
C
R
E
E
KSURVEY BOUNDARYS
URVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 511+00
UT 512+00 UT 513+00UT 514+00STA 14+90.4
END ENHANCEMENT II
UT 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDE AIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
SEE SHEET E9STA 3+50 -UT 4-MATCHLINEEROSION CONTROL E11
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E11.dgnBSmithBREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
HAUL ROAD
515516517 518
518518519
519519
520
520520521
521521
522
522522522
523
523
523523524
524524524524 525525
525
525525525525525525525525525
526
526
526526526526527
527
527527527527527527
5
2
8
528528528528528
528
5
2
9
529
529529529529
529 530530
530530530530530530
530531
531531531532
532532532533533533533534
534534535535535535535535
535
536536537537537
537538538538540540541542543544544545545546546
546
546
D
B 1195 P
G 0905
RE
V
O
C T
R
UST
H
A
DLE
Y, PE
G
G
Y J. C
HEE
K
RE
V
O
C T
R
UST
H
A
DLE
Y, R
USSELL
B.
WIRE FENCE
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
WIRE FENCE
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY
BOUNDARYUT 40+00UT 41+00UT 42+00UT 43+00ELEV=522.76
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 4
AREA
MARSH TREATMENT
16' TOP WIDTH (TYP)
BURY 20%
2@24" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DIST
U
RB
A
N
CE
LI
MITS
OF
DIKE
I
MPE
R
VIO
USDDIKE
IMPERVIOUS
P-15
P-14
DIKE
IMPERVIOUS
D
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
SEE SHEET E13STA 5+00 -UT 6-
MATCHLINE
EROSION CONTROL E12
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E12.dgnBSmithBREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
HAUL ROAD504505506
507
507507508508
508509
509509510
510
510510
510510511
511
511511512
512
512512513
513
513513514
514
514514515
515
515
515
515515515516
516
516516517
517
517
517517517 518518
518
518518519
519
519
519519520
520
520
520
520520520520520521
521
521
521521521522
522
522522523
523
523523524
524524524525525
525
525525525526
526526527
527527528
528528
529
529530530
530530530530
531532532533533534535
536536 FLOOD ZONE
PRELIM 100 YR
FLOOD ZONEPRELI
M 100 YRDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
SURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURV
EY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 60+00UT 61+00UT 62+00UT 63+00UT 64+00ELEV=518.50
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 6HAUL ROADDISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF DDIKE
IMP.DDIKE
IMP.
P-18
P-19
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
SEE SHEET E12STA 5+00 -UT 6-
MATCHLINE
EROSION CONTROL E13
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E13.dgnBSmithBREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
HAUL ROAD
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
498
498499499499499499499499499500500
5
0
0500500500500500500 500501
501
5015
0
1
501501
501501
5025025025025
0
2502
502502503503
5035
0
3503
503503503
503503503503503503503504
5
0
4
5045045045
04
504504504504504504504504504504504
504 504504504
504504
504504
504504504
504504
504504504504504505505505505505505
505505505505
5
0
5
5055055
0
5505 505505505505
505
505505505505505505505505505505505506506506
506506506506506
506506506506506506506507507507
507507507507508508508508509509509510510510510510510511511511512512
513514515515515516516517517
518519520520521522523524527529530FLOOD ZONEPRELIM 100 YRF
LOOD ZONEP
RELI
M
1
0
0 YRWIRE F E NCE
WIRE FENCE
WIRE FENCEWIRE FENCEDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.COL
ONI
AL
PIP
E
LI
NE
E
AS
E
ME
NTCOLONIAL
PI
P
E
LI
NE
E
AS
E
ME
NT
SOUTH FORK CREEKSURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 66+00UT 67+00ELEV=500.88
STA 7+80.9
END RESTORATION
UT 6
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF DDIKE
IMP.
DIKE
IMP.DP-20
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
S
E
E
S
HE
E
T
E
15
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 -UT
7-MAT
C
HLI
NE
EROSION CONTROL E14
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E14.dgnBSmithBREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
HAUL ROAD
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE511512513514515515515516516517517517
518
518518519519
519519520520
520
520
520520520521
521
521521522522
522522
523
523
523524524 525525
525
525525526
526 527527
527527 528528
528528528
529
5
2
9
5
2
9529530
530530530
530530531531
531531532
5
3
2
532532
532 533533533533
533 534534534534534
5355
3
5
535535535
536
536536537537538
538
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
S
U
R
V
E
Y

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 70+00UT 71+00UT 72+00UT 73+00UT 74+00ELEV=525.74
STA 0+00
START ENHANCEMENT 1
UT 7
AREA
TREATMENT
MARSH
16' TOP WIDTH (TYP)
BURY 20%
2@24" CMP
PERMANENT CROSSING
HAUL ROAD
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF DDIKE
IMP.
P-21
P-22
DDIKE
IMP.
DIKE
IMP.
D
P-23
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
SEE SHEET E14STA 5+00 -UT 7-MATCHLINEEROSION CONTROL E15
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E15.dgnBSmithBREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
HAUL ROAD
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE4964964964974974974974
9
7
497
497
498
498498499
499499500
500500500
5 0 0 500500500501501501501501501502502502502502502
502
502502502
5035035 0 3 503503
503
5 0 3
503
503
503
504
504504504504
504
504
504
504
504
505
505505
505505505
505505505505
505
505
505
505
505
506506506506506
506 507507
507507508
508508509509
509509509
510510510
510
510510510511
511
511512
512
512513
5135 1 4
514515515515
515515516517
517518518
FLOOD ZONE
PRELIM 100 YR
F
L
OOD
Z
ONE
P
RE
LI
M
10
0 YRRISERPSNC PLATIC
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.WI
RE FENCESOUTH FORK CREEKSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 76+00UT 77+00UT 78+00UT 79+00ELEV=495.38
STA 9+96.2
END ENHANCEMENT 1
UT 7
HAUL ROAD
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DIKE
IMP.DP-24
DDIKE
IMP.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
EROSION CONTROL E16
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E16.dgnBSmithS
E
E
S
HE
E
T
E
17
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 -UT
8-MAT
C
HLI
NE
BREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
HAUL ROAD
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE514515515515516516516
517517517
518518 518
518518518519519519
520520520520520
520
520
520520521521521521
522522522
522
522522522522
522522522523523523
523 523
5245245
2
4
524 524
524525525525525525
525 525 525 525 525
5255265 2 6 526 526
527527527
5
2
7 527
528528528 528 528
528528529529529
529 529
530530530530
530
530 530
5305
30531531531
531
531531531531532532532
532
532
532532532533533 5335335335335345
3
4 534
534534534534534534535535535
5
35
535 535
535535535
535535535535535535536536536
536536536537
537537538538539
DB 3004 PG 0810
REVOC TRUST
LINDLEY, DARRYL M.
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
EIP
ALLEN, DANNY T.
DB 512 PG 676
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 80+00UT 81+00UT 82+00UT 83+00
UT 84+00ELEV=522.06
STA 0+00
START RESTORATION
UT 8
HAU
L
RO
ADHAUL ROADDISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF DP-25
DIKE
IMPERVIOUS DP-26
DIKE
IMPERVIOUS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
NC SPATIAL DATA QL2 LIDAR
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDEAIN
HT
OR LR
O
CA
ROFESSION
26971
GE
NREINE
SEALPNAL
NOTLAD .G
AUHS
OJ
S
E
E
S
HE
E
T
E
16
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 -UT
8-MAT
C
HLI
NE
EROSION CONTROL E17
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
DATE:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
7/16/2018Heron_psh_E17.dgnBSmithBREAK
CONTROL FENCE
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
HAUL ROAD
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE502502502503503504504
505
505505505506506506
506506506506 506506506506506506506506506507
507507507507 507507507507507507507507508508508508508508508508508508508508508508508508509509
5095095095105105
1
0510
510510510511511
511511512512512
512512512512513513
513513513513514514514514514
515515515515515515
515
515515515516516516 516517517517
517
517518518518518
518
519519519519 519520520520520520520
520 520520520521521521521521522522522
522
522522523523523 523523523523523 5245245245245245245245255255255255255255255
2
5526526
526527528
528529
530
530
531
531531531532
533
533533534
535
FLOOD ZONEPRELI
M
1
0
0 YRFLOOD ZONE
PRELIM 100 YR
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.COLONI
AL PI
PELI
NE EASEMENTCOLONI
AL PI
PELI
NE EASEMENTCREEKSOUTH FORKSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY
BOUNDARY SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 84+00UT 86+00UT 87+00UT 88+00ELEV=511.43
STA 6+09.0
START ENHANCEMENT II
END RESTORATION
UT 8
ELEV=506.64
STA 8+56.9
END ENHANCEMENT II
UT 8
HAUL ROAD
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF DDIKE
IMP.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
7/17/2018 9:21:42 AM EDT
PLANTING NOTES

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
P-2
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P02 (notes).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
1. LOCATE A HEELING-IN SITE IN A SHADY, WELL
PROTECTED AREA.
4. PLACE A SINGLE LAYER OF PLANTS
3. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH 2 INCHES WELL
ROTTED SAWDUST. PLACE A 2 INCH LAYER OF
2. EXCAVATE A FLAT BOTTOM TRENCH
12 INCHES DEEP AND PROVIDE DRAINAGE.
WELL ROTTED SAWDUST AT A SLOPING ANGLE
AT ONE END OF THE TRENCH.
AGAINST THE SLOPING END SO THAT
GROUND LEVEL.
THE ROOT COLLAR IS AT HIGHER
5. PLACE A 2 INCH LAYER OF WELL ROTTED
SAWDUST OVER THE ROOTS MAINTAINING
A SLOPING ANGLE.
6. REPEAT LAYERS OF PLANTS AND SAWDUST
AS NECESSARY AND WATER THOROUGHLY.
(USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR)
TOWARDS PLANTER.
AND PULL HANDLE
BAR AS SHOWN
1. INSERT PLANTING
CORRECT DEPTH.
SEEDLING AT
BAR AND PLACE
2. REMOVE PLANTING
FROM SEEDLING.
TOWARD PLANTER
BAR 2 INCHES
3. INSERT PLANTING
2 IN
SOIL AT BOTTOM.
PLANTER, FIRMING
BAR TOWARDS
4. PULL HANDLE OF
SOIL AT TOP.
FORWARD FIRMING
5. PUSH HANDLE
THOROUGHLY.
HOLE OPEN. WATER
6. LEAVE COMPACTION
PLANTING BAG
KBC PLANTING BAR
ROOT PRUNING
TO PREVENT THE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.
IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG OR SIMILAR CONTAINER
1. DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL BE KEPT
THICK AT CENTER.
12 INCHES LONG, 4 INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH
TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION, AND SHALL BE
2. PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE WITH A
THAN 10 INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.
NECESSARY, SO THAT NO ROOTS EXTEND MORE
3. ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT PRUNED, IF
NOTES:
HEELING IN
BAREROOTED SEEDLINGS
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
REFORESTATION
PLANTING TYPICALS

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
P-3
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P03 (typ).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
BUDS (FACING UPWARD)
SQUARE CUT
GROUND
EXISTING/PROPOSED
LIVE STAKES
BANK STABILIZATION WITH LIVE STAKES
COIR FIBER MAT
(1/2"-2" DIAMETER)
LIVE CUTTING
2 - 3 Feet
STREAMBED
EXISTING/PROPOSED
SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR AREAS TO BE PLANTED
ANGLE CUT 30 -45
oo
GROUND
APPROXIMATELY 3/4 OF LIVE STAKE IS WITHIN
2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN UNTIL
4 FEET ON CENTER
1. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE SPACED APPROXIMATELY
NOTES:
BANKFULL
WATER SURFACE
NORMAL
LIVE STAKE SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW
LIVE STAKES
CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 680 PLANTS PER ACRE.
PLANTED 6 FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM SPACING, AVERAGING 8 FT. ON
2. STREAMBANK REFORESTATION USING BARE ROOTED SEEDLINGS SHALL BE
CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 4840 PLANTS PER ACRE.
PLANTED 2 FT. TO 4 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM SPACING, AVERAGING 3 FT. ON
1. STREAMBANK REFORESTATION USING LIVE STAKES AND TUBLINGS SHALL BE
NOTES:
PLANTING TYPICALS

SHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
P-3A
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBER
COUNTY:DATE:2018
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P03a (typ).dgnBSmith

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
PLANTING P-4
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P04.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET P6MATCHLINE
S
E
E S
H
E
E
T P5MA
T
C
H
LIN
E S
T
A 6+50 -
U
T1-
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
FORK RD (SR 2351)BETHEL SOUTHWIRE FENCEEIP
HADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
DB 3492 PG 0554
36" RCPSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 10+00UT 12+00UT 11+00 UT 13+00
UT 14+00UT 15+00
UT 16+00UT 22+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
SEE SHEET P4STA 6+50 UT 1MATCHLINE SEE SHEET P7
STA 2+00 UT 3
MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET P6
STA 3+00 UT 2MATCHLINE
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-5
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P05.dgnBSmith60"
H
D
PEEOPEOPHADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
DB 3492 PG 0554COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTEASEMENTPIPELINECOLONIALWI
RE FENCESURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 18+00UT 17+00 UT 19+00UT 110+00UT 111+00UT 112+00UT 113+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-6
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P06.dgnBSmithS
E
E S
H
E
E
T
P5
S
T
A 3
+00
U
T 2MA
T
C
H
LI
N
E
S
E
E S
HE
E
T P4MAT
C
HLI
NE
EASEMENTPIPELINECOLONIALEASEMENTPIPELINECOLONIALHADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
DB 3492 PG 0554
ISS CAP 3WIRE FENCESURV
EY

BOUNDA
RY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 21+00UT 20+00UT 22+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-7
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P07.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET P5STA 2+00 UT 3MATCHLINEDB 3492 PG 0554
HADLEY, MICHAEL TODD
ISS CAP 1
EOP
EOP
SURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 110+00UT 113+00UT 30+00UT 31+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
S
E
E
S
HE
E
T
P
9
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 UT
5MAT
C
HLI
NE
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-8
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P08.dgnBSmithEOG
EOG
12" RCP12" RCP
WIRE FENCE
WIRE FENCE
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
SURVEY BOUNDARY
S
UR
VE
Y B
O
U
N
D
AR
Y
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 50+00UT 51+00UT 52+00UT 53+00UT 54+00UT 55+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-9
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P09.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET P8
STA 5+00 -UT 5-
MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET P11
STA 3+50 -UT 4-MATCHLINE SEE SHEET P10STA 11+00 -UT 5-MATCHLINEDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
WIRE
FENCE
WIRE FENCEWI
RE FENCEWIRE FENCEISS CAP 500
SURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYUT
43+00UT 44+00UT 56+00UT 57+00UT 58+00UT 59+00UT 510+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-10
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P10.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET P9
STA 11+00 -UT 5-
MATCHLINE FLOOD ZONEPRELIM 100 YRF
L
OOD
Z
ONE
P
R
E
LI
M
10
0 YR
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
S
OUT
H F
OR
K
C
R
E
E
KSURVEY BOUNDARYS
URVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 511+00
UT 512+00 UT 513+00UT 514+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-11
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P11.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET P9STA 3+50 -UT 4-MATCHLINED
B 1195 P
G 0905
RE
V
O
C T
R
UST
H
A
DLE
Y, PE
G
G
Y J. C
HEE
K
RE
V
O
C T
R
UST
H
A
DLE
Y, R
USSELL
B.
WIRE FENCE
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
WIRE FENCE
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY
BOUNDARYUT 40+00UT 41+00UT 42+00UT 43+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-12
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P12.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET P13STA 5+00 -UT 6-
MATCHLINEFLOOD ZONE
PRELIM 100 YR
FLOOD ZONEPRELI
M 100 YRDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
SURVEY BOUNDARYSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURV
EY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 60+00UT 61+00UT 62+00UT 63+00UT 64+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-13
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P13.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET P12STA 5+00 -UT 6-
MATCHLINE FLOOD ZONEPRELIM 100 YRF
LOOD ZONEP
RELI
M
1
0
0 YRWIRE F E NCE
WIRE FENCE
WIRE FENCEWIRE FENCEDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.COL
ONI
AL
PIP
E
LI
NE
E
AS
E
ME
NTCOLONIAL
PI
P
E
LI
NE
E
AS
E
ME
NT
SOUTH FORK CREEKSURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
UT 66+00UT 67+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-14
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P14.dgnBSmithS
E
E
S
HE
E
T
P
15
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 -UT
7-MAT
C
HLI
NE
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
S
U
R
V
E
Y

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 70+00UT 71+00UT 72+00UT 73+00UT 74+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-15
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P15.dgnBSmithSEE SHEET P14STA 5+00 -UT 7-MATCHLINEFLOOD ZONE
PRELIM 100 YR
F
L
OOD
Z
ONE
P
RE
LI
M
10
0 YRRISERPSNC PLATIC
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENTDB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.WI
RE FENCESOUTH FORK CREEKSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 76+00UT 77+00UT 78+00UT 79+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-16
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P16.dgnBSmithS
E
E
S
HE
E
T
P
17
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 -UT
8-MAT
C
HLI
NEPIPELINE EASEMENTCOLONI
ALDB 3004 PG 0810
REVOC TRUST
LINDLEY, DARRYL M.
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.
EIP
ALLEN, DANNY T.
DB 512 PG 676
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY
BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 80+00UT 81+00UT 82+00UT 83+00
UT 84+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029
DRY-MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST
ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/ LOW MOUNTAIN
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE
PLANTING P-17
ALAMANCE
SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME
PROJECT NAME:
COUNTY:DATE:2018
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
TEL [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
7/16/2018Heron_psh_P17.dgnBSmithS
E
E
S
HE
E
T
P
16
S
T
A
5
+
0
0 -UT
8-MAT
C
HLI
NE FLOOD ZONEPRELI
M
1
0
0 YRFLOOD ZONE
PRELIM 100 YR
DB 1195 PG 0905
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, PEGGY J. CHEEK
REVOC TRUST
HADLEY, RUSSELL B.COLONI
AL PI
PELI
NE EASEMENTCOLONI
AL PI
PELI
NE EASEMENTCREEKSOUTH FORKSURVEY BOUNDARY
SURVEY
BOUNDARY SURVEY BOUNDARYUT 84+00UT 86+00UT 87+00UT 88+00DocuSign Envelope ID: 20979888-341C-4A9C-B3F2-464DACD81029